Economic Migrants or Refugees? Trends in Global Migration · 2017. 11. 16. · Economic Migrants or...

Economic Migrantsor Refugees?

Trends in Global Migration

Session ProceedingsJanuary 12, 2000

Hosted by The Maytree Foundation

in cooperation with

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy &The Canadian Institute of International Affairs

St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, Jane Mallett Theatre27 Front Street East, Toronto, Ontario

Published by the Caledon Institute of Social PolicyISBN 1-894598-01-6

2 Caledon Institute of Social Policy

Economic Migrants or Refugees? Trends in Global Migration

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Keynote SpeakerProfessor Ivan Head 4Director, Liu Centre for the Study of Global IssuesUniversity of British Columbia

Forum ModeratorHugh Segal 12President, Institute for Research on Public Policy

PanelistsSusan Davis 14Co-Author, “Not Just Numbers”

The Honourable Barbara McDougall 19President, Canadian Institute of International Affairs

Jeffrey Reitz 22Professor of Sociology, The University of Toronto

Demetrios Papademetriou 26Co-Director, International Migration Policy ProgramCarnegie Endowment for International Peace

T. Sher Singh 30Lawyer and Columnist (The Toronto Star)

Questions from the Audience 35

Concluding RemarksProfessor Ivan Head 39

Ministerial AddressThe Honourable Elinor Caplan 40Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Appendix A - About the Speakers 47

Appendix B - About the SponsorsThe Maytree Foundation 48The Caledon Institute of Social Policy 49The Canadian Institute of International Affairs 50

Caledon Institute of Social Policy 3


Introduction

The Maytree Foundation, in conjunctionwith the Caledon Institute of Social Policy andthe Canadian Institute of International Affairs,sponsored the forum Economic Migrants or Refu-gees? Trends in Global Migration on January12, 2000, in Toronto.

In the summer of 1999, smuggled Chi-nese migrants arrived by boat on Canada’s WestCoast. Canadians reacted in many differentways, expressing emotions ranging from conster-nation to compassion and from panic to ambiva-lence. The arrival of the smuggled migrantsraised difficult and critical questions about Cana-da’s immigration and refugee policies.

Panellists were asked to address the fol-lowing key questions:

· How should a country like Canada respondto economic migrants? Is poverty a form ofoppression? Is systematic deprivation ofopportunity in the country of origin a form

of oppression that might qualify one as a refu-gee?

· Does Canada have an obligation to these newarrivals? Do wealthy countries have a moralobligation towards the citizens of poor coun-tries?

· Is there an opportunity for Canada to benefitfrom those seeking a better economic situa-tion, particularly given our low birth rate?

The objective of this forum was to bringnew and fresh thinking to immigration and refu-gee policy questions in Canada. The forum isone in a series of public events intended to con-tribute to the development of progressive publicpolicies in Canada by enhancing public discourse(For information about other events, visitwww.maytree.com). For this reason, a varietyof perspectives were presented – reflectinginternational, legal, historical, economic andsocial justice dimensions.



Professor Ivan HeadDirector

Liu Centre for the Study of Global IssuesUniversity of British Columbia

We are gathered today, remarkably, toaddress ‘economic migration.’ In the earliesthours of a new millennium, the Maytree Foun-dation has chosen this of all possible topics asworthy of our consideration. That so many per-sons have elected to participate is evidence ofthe wisdom of that decision. At the commence-ment of this year 2000 AD, we are directing ourattention today not to the most recent andunprecedented examples of human activity oraccomplishment, but to one of the most basic andmost traditional - the willingness of humanbeings to leave behind all that is familiar and tomigrate in search of a more sustainable liveli-hood.

Thus do we reveal our values as a societythis day in January. Not in anticipation of theextraordinary medical event to take place in thenear future - the world’s first human implant ofan artificial heart now undergoing its final trialsin Ottawa. Not in recognition of the creative tri-umphs of this country’s many acclaimed artists,nor in celebration of the fact that two of theworld’s most highly regarded jurists - both ofthem women - have in recent weeks been ele-vated to Chief Justice and appointed as Justiceof the Supreme Court of Canada, signalling tothe world that ours is the most human of socie-ties. Not to any of these - but to migration, thetap root of so much of Canadian accomplishmentand identity.

As is understood by historians andanthropologists, migration has been a constanttheme among all human endeavours. In his most

acclaimed work, The Ascent of Man, JacobBronowski employed the first sentence of the firstchapter to say: “Man is a singular creature,” andcontinued to describe him as “the ubiquitousanimal who did not find but has made his homein every continent” [Bronowski 1973: 10]. Oneof the earliest written records of human history,the scriptures of the Old Testament, containsaccounts of human migration: sometimes flee-ing oppression, oft-times in search of food. Gen-esis 12:10: “There was famine in the land; soAbraham went down to Egypt to sojourn there,since the famine in the land was severe.” Of theseevents my friend Tom Farer, now Dean of theGraduate School of International Studies at theUniversity of Denver, has written: “Were theybut accessible, Philistines and Hebrews of Bib-lical times could attest that mass migration isnothing new, either as a phenomenon or a pro-blem: sometimes for the migrants, sometimes forthe people they encounter, sometimes for both”[Farer 1995: 257].

From the Neolithic Revolution around7000 B.C. to Canada in 2000 A.D., the saga ofthe human species has featured migration, oftenof an involuntary character. Jared Diamond hasdescribed in vivid fashion how only a single con-tinent, Antarctica, has not been populated over-whelmingly by inward migration; Antarctica,alone of all the continents, is unpopulated [Dia-mond 1997].

In this century, Canada is one of a numberof countries whose demography has been shapedsignificantly by immigration. That the resultshave been of immense benefit to our society andour quality of life is accepted after the event vir-tually without qualification. To the Canadiansalive during those periods of intense migration,however, the case was otherwise. From the early18th century onward, immigration has often been



a hotly contested issue to those already here. TheYear 2000 edition of The Canadian Encyclope-dia begins its lengthy article on Immigration bystating:

The story of Canadian immigration is notone of orderly population growth; it hasbeen and remains both a catalyst toCanadian economic development and amirror of Canadian attitudes and values; ithas often been unashamedly and economi-cally self-serving and ethnically or raciallybiased [The Canadian Encyclopedia 1999:1139].

And, as I mentioned above, more oftenthan not contentious. Any examination of thehistory of Canadian immigration leads inexora-bly to the conclusion that the only periods whencontention was absent, or at least muted, werethose years of labour shortages that were beingfilled principally with persons of the white racedrawn either from Western Europe or the UnitedStates. That Canada is nevertheless now one ofthe world’s most heterogeneous and stable soci-eties, with major cities as racially diverse as thosefound anywhere, is an immensely instructivehuman narrative.

While it would be unfair to single out anyone region of the country as exhibiting the mostspirited xenophobic tendencies, it would not beincorrect to say that in the course of the past cen-tury, an indelible linkage between economic cir-cumstance and virulent racism has frequentlybeen present in British Columbia. In her bril-liant social history of the province, The WestBeyond the West, Jean Barman encapsulated thatlink as observed in the late 19th century in thesewords:

Judge Begbie [an English jurist appointedby the British government in 1859 as‘Judge of British Columbia’] aptlysummed up the general view of the Chi-nese in his observation that “they are gen-erally abused, and yet everybody employsthem.” Since the earliest days of the goldrush the Chinese, together with the nativepeoples, were indispensable to theeconomy” [Berman 1991: 133].

The presence of Asians in Vancouver ledto two sizable riots there - in 1887 and in 1907 -instigated by whites fearful of losing their liveli-hood to persons willing to work in dangerous orundesirable circumstances often for low wages.Of this period following completion of theCanadian Pacific Railway through the mountains,Desmond Morton has written: “When ... Chineselabour stayed on as cheap labour for the prov-ince’s mines and forest industry, white workersgot a solid economic basis for their racial preju-dices” [Morton 1994: 122].

It should not be assumed, however, thatthese attitudes were confined locally, and notshared by the Government of Canada. Exam-ples: the head tax levied upon Chinese malescoming into Canada, imposed initially by theprovincial government, disallowed federally,then reintroduced by the Government of Canada,rising to $500 per person in 1903, is one; theemployment of the Royal Canadian Navy in 1914to escort out of Canadian waters the passengership Komagatu Maru, is another. This vessel,carrying 376 persons from India seeking entryinto Canada in search of a better life, had beendetained in Vancouver harbour for two monthswhile authority was sought from Ottawa to turnit away. Margaret Ormsby described the scene



in graphic terms: “On the morning of July 23,every roof-top near the harbour was crowded bycitizens who had risen early to watch H.M.C.S.Rainbow, which had been called from Esquimalt,perform her first important naval function inescorting out of Vancouver harbour a shiploadof British subjects” [Ormsby 1958: 370].

Lest this central Canadian audience con-clude that public hysteria with respect to boat-loads of foreigners is a symptom confined to thePacific coast, I need only refer to the unexpectedarrivals in Atlantic Canada, one year apart, oftwo ships bearing Sikh and Tamil refugee claim-ants in the late 1980s. The second arrival - car-rying 174 persons - triggered in this part of thecountry such exaggerated fears of an Asian tidalwave of humanity that the Parliament of Canadawas called back from summer recess in a rareemergency session, surely one of the morehyperbolic acts in the history of democraticinstitutions anywhere.

Excepting only these last incidents, allthe historical examples I have offered occurredin a period much different from today. Differentin two respects: first, they preceded the entry intoforce of the United Nations Convention Relat-ing to the Status of Refugees; second, they tookplace in periods when the world’s population wasa fraction of what it is today. Neither of thesefacts can be overlooked in any balanced discus-sion of migration. Let me begin with popula-tion.

In 1900, the total population of the worldwas 1.7 billion. A century later, it has virtuallyquadrupled and is now slightly more than sixbillion and climbing. Of equal importance tooverall size, I suggest, is the geographic distri-bution of that population. A century ago, it wasroughly evenly distributed between the industri-

alized and the developing countries, betweenNorth and South in the current nomenclature.Today, it is close to five to one - five in the South,one in the North.

We should not be surprised, therefore,that in an age of virtually universal access to TVand the Internet, of increasing disparities inincome and living standards as between Southand North, there exists an intense desire on thepart of many to flee from their misery and to seektheir fortunes where opportunity appears tobeckon: to “sojourn” - as Abraham did - in amore attractive landscape for an indefiniteperiod. What those seeking to move encountertoday, however, are national borders much lesswelcoming to people than was the case even acentury ago. In that interval, barriers have beeneased for the passage of money and of goods,but universally strengthened against the passageof persons. The current state of the Canada-United States border is illustrative of the trend.Undefended against armies it may be; unguardedagainst persons it certainly is not.

As resistance to migratory movements hasincreased, there has been recognition coinci-dentally by the international community of theneed to respond to those in extraordinarily peril-ous circumstances - those in flight from poli-tical persecution, from civil war, from naturaldisasters. These circumstances may be cate-gorized as ‘push’ factors, distinct from the ‘pull’factors of economic attraction or family reunion,though the two categories often blur and are dif-ficult to distinguish.

The most visible of these internationalresponses is that with respect to refugees, the sec-ond of the two major differences between theworld of 100 years ago and today that I call toyour attention. In response to the large numbers



of refugees within Europe following the conclu-sion of World War II - then referred to as “dis-placed persons” - international law formallyacknowledged the existence of these persons withthe 1951 Convention Relating to the Status ofRefugees. The Convention entered into force in1954 [189 U.N.T.S. 137] and was clarified byan amending Protocol in 1967 [606 U.N.T.S.267]. These treaties define refugees as personswho have fled their country of origin owing to“a well-founded fear of being persecuted for rea-sons of race, religion, nationality, membershipof a particular social group or political opinion.”States party to these treaties, of which Canada isone, are not obligated to offer entry to such per-sons, but are obligated not to return them againsttheir will to their state of origin should they bewithin their territory.

As well, in the latter circumstance, thereceiving state must offer to them while withintheir territories “treatment at least as favourableas that accorded to their nationals” for certainpurposes. These requirements explain the criti-cal importance of the geographic location of therefugee claimants when first encountered. Itexplains as well the oft-referred-to policy of theUnited States to apprehend in the waters offGuam vessels suspected of carrying illegalmigrants from Asia bound for the Americanmainland. Guam is an island in the NorthernMariana Group, a United States commonwealth.It is not part of the United States and so refugeeclaimants interdicted there are not ‘within’ theUS and thus are not subject to the protection ofthe Convention.

Whether in the United States or elsewhere,the task of determining the legitimacy of refu-gee claims is both challenging and time-consum-ing, as Canadians are aware following the arrivalin British Columbia this past year of three shipsand one cargo container of persons claiming refu-

gee status. Those persons, all of Chinese origin,represent only a fraction of those making refu-gee claims at Canadian ports of entry in recentyears, including many who are unable or unwill-ing to provide either proof of identity or credibleevidence of persecution, but who are never-theless entitled to claim the protections of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - thisby virtue of a 1985 decision of the Supreme Courtof Canada [Re Singh and the Minister ofEmployment and Immigration 1985 S.C.R. 177].

The form and slowness of the deter-mination process understandably have been thesubject of immense media attention and publiccontroversy. They are in many respects thethorniest of the issues surrounding the subject ofrefugee claimants. They are beyond the scopeof what I have been asked to address this after-noon, however. Let me say only that in thisinstance, as with any process to determine fact,arguments in favour of simplification - as dis-tinct from acceleration - must be carefullyexamined to ensure that they are not shibboleths.A remark attributed to Einstein is apt: “God pro-tect us from the simplifications,” he is alleged tohave said, “I can cope with the complexities.”

The narrow Convention definition ofrefugee excludes vast numbers of involuntarymigrants fleeing civil war, natural disasters oreconomic circumstance that threaten their sur-vival. For this reason a number of states, Canadaamong them, have from time to time expandedthe definition through the introduction of spe-cial programs to resettle victims of disturbance.The resettlement in Canada of Vietnamese ‘boatpeople’ is one such example; the admission ofpolitical prisoners from El Salvador and Guate-mala is a second; self-exiled persons from theformer Communist regimes of Eastern Europeis the third. These persons have been admittedunder a provision in the Immigration Act that



authorizes asylum “in accordance with Canada’shumanitarian tradition with respect to thedisplaced and the persecuted” [R.S.C. 1985,c. I-12, s.6 (2)].

To assist Convention refugees as well as“populations of concern,” including asylum seek-ers and internally displaced persons, the UN cre-ated in 1949 the office of High Commissionerfor Refugees. UNHCR reported recently that, in1998, the total number of persons of concern hadshown a marked drop to 21.5 million from therecord high of 27 million in 1995. The numbersrepresent nevertheless misery on a massive scale.Of the 1991 total, about half - 11.5 million -fall into the category of refugees. The countryof origin of the largest number of refugees cur-rently is Afghanistan from which 2.6 millionpersons have fled - largely to Pakistan - withimmense impact upon that already impoverishedcountry. In addition, the poor and often heavilypopulated African neighbours of each of Soma-lia and Burundi are currently extending asylumto more than a million refugees from those places.

It is against circumstances of that mag-nitude and depth of despair that Canadians shouldmeasure the decision of The Vancouver Sun lastweek to dedicate a two-inch banner headline tothe discovery in a container ship in Vancouverharbour of 25 men endeavouring to travel fromChina to the United States, followed by furtherfront page banners in the days thereafter. News-worthy as the event certainly was, the nature ofthe reporting is the concern. The media accountsgenerally all carried the same message: Thesepersons are not refugees, they are only fleeingeconomic deprivation in search of a better lifefor themselves and their families, and they arejumping the available queue in doing so. As such,the Reform Party justice critic is reported to saythey should be sent back summarily. “If the lawneeds to be changed to permit that,” said Mr. John

Reynolds, “then let’s change it.” Presumably,he would change the Charter as well.

Quite clearly, neither international norCanadian domestic law extends the definition ofrefugee to include persons fleeing economichardship - even though that hardship may beperilously close to famine of Old Testamentdimensions. Equally clearly, Canadian law hasconsciously chosen to give great weight to theeconomic requirements of Canada when deter-mining who and how many migrants may belanded in this country. In the result, had I beenasked by the organizers of this meeting to do nomore than explain Canada’s official position vis-à-vis ‘economic migration,’ my task would havebeen simple in the extreme - of considerableimportance if it is the economy of Canada inquestion, of no consequence whatever if it is theeconomic plight of the migrant that is being con-sidered. It is to consider the propriety of thispolicy that this meeting has been convened.

Whatever our individual attitudes heretoday, there can be no doubt that this distinctionreflects accurately the views of the great major-ity of Canadians and that it is not markedly dif-ferent from the policies of those few other coun-tries that have vigorous immigration policies -the United States, Australia, New Zealand, mostprominently and, occasionally, a small numberof European countries. Whether this position isone that should be regarded as normative in the21st century; whether it is one that is tenable in asociety committed to social justice and tohumanitarian goals - these are questions onwhich panellists and participants will wish tooffer opinions.

I should like to offer some preliminarycomments in these respects, first with a focus onCanada, then with regard to the world as a whole.



First, Canada. While the United Statesis most outspoken in its self-description as anation of immigrants, Canada could make thesame claim with a distinction only in the num-bers of persons landed. Beginning with thearrival more than two centuries ago of the firstself-identified refugees - the United Empire Loy-alists - through the influx of tens of thousandsof Irish in the mid-19th century, the millions whofilled up the plains of Western Canada follow-ing the turn of the 20th century, the million-and-a-half who flooded in immediately followingWorld War II, and the four or more million whohave come since 1970, Canada’s population hasreflected in quantity and quality those born else-where every bit as much as it has those born here.By quality, I include educational attainment andcultural expression as well as economic vitality;by quantity, I reflect on the fact that Canada’sbirth rate for several decades has been less thanthe replacement rate. Without immigration, theaging Canadian population would becomesmaller as well as less dynamic.

Having said that, however, it cannot beassumed that Canada is able to absorb unlimitednumbers of immigrants. The recognition of eco-nomic hardship as a valid qualification forentry, without more, would suggest to hundredsof millions of persons in developing countriesthat Canada is able to embrace them and offerthem an enhanced livelihood - clearly an unten-able proposition. I argue only that the categori-zation of economic need as an unworthy elementin a would-be immigrant’s or refugee’s list ofqualifications is hypocritical and unrealistic. Ifthe economic needs of Canada are a legitimatefactor, then surely should the economic motiva-tion of a migrant be given weight as well.

Beyond our shores, as populations burgeonand major cities become so monstrously large,so environmentally benighted and so politically

unstable as to threaten even modest levels ofeffective governance, the promised bright futureof increased international trade and political tran-quillity rests on questionable foundations.Should the great commercial centres of devel-oping countries fall prey to overburdened infra-structure, to civil unrest following on criminalactivity, thence to the oppressive reaction of theprivileged classes, what confidence can be placedin the orderly sourcing or marketing of products,the safety abroad of executives and skilled work-ers, the adherence of regimes under pressure tomaintenance of international norms of civilityand to performance of international legal obli-gations? In a global age, disruptions anywherehave impact everywhere.

Canada - a country whose history,economy and society are the products of engage-ment with the broader world - would atrophyshould we attempt to insulate ourselves fromlands and events elsewhere. That being the case,it is in our interest - indeed is an obligation toprotect our future - to extend assistance to per-sons in the developing countries to develop theirsocieties and their economies in order to ensurestability and well-being. That discussion, whileclosely related to our subject today, must waitfor another day, however.

No one today can be unaware that inter-national boundaries and geographic obstaclesboth have lost much of their historical effective-ness in preventing the flow through - or across- them of information, investment capital, tradegoods and technology, and also of infectious dis-ease, pollutants and contraband - including peo-ple. In any examination of the category calledpeople, a major subset consists of those who havemoved involuntarily. However we define them,as economic migrants or as refugees, is lessimportant than understanding the nature of theirplight and giving legitimacy to the extent of their



circumstance. If this is difficult, we should notstand aside in awe. We are not, after all, archae-ologists examining the remnants of a distant age.We are participants in a rapidly changing, oftenunclear, matrix of diverse and confusing events.

We are gathered here three months to theday following the moment that the world’s popu-lation reached six billion. In that brief interval,the population has swelled by another 19,418,000- as of noon today. That is a number approach-ing two-thirds of the entire population of Canada.However we interpret this kaleidoscope ofevents, however we analyze the salient factors,we do so dependent upon - and project into thefuture - our vision of society, of community, ofself. Do we view others, do we regard ourselves,primarily and predominantly as clans, as eco-nomic classes, as mutually competitive animalsor are we able to see ourselves as humans withthe responsibility to care, and the opportunity tobenefit?

Bronowski regards the defining distinc-tion of humans as their creative ability: “Everyanimal leaves traces of what it was,” he writes,“man alone leaves traces of what he created”[Bronoskwi 1973: 42]. We diminish ourselvesand our values if we forsake our creativity inproblem solving in order to concentrate upon,and increase the efficiency of, our ability toexclude.

In Vancouver, overlooking the harbourentrance from which the Komagatu Marusteamed 86 years ago, is situated the Universityof British Columbia whose student body and fac-ulty are as diverse as the world itself, denyingimplicitly simplistic categorizations about sta-tus or origin.

This past autumn, an internationallyrenowned Professor in the Department of Sur-

gery of the Faculty of Medicine at UBC was pre-sented with the Killam excellence in teachingprize. Dr. Karim Qayumi is Editor-in-Chief ofthe Journal of Investigative Surgery and aninternationally recognized innovator in surgicalinstructional techniques. I mention him here asan example of the difficulty of distinguishingmigrants by category. This outstanding Cana-dian was born and raised in Afghanistan, theneducated in the Soviet Union, before migratingto Canada.

At UBC, one of his colleagues isDr. Indira Samarasekera, Fellow of the RoyalSociety of Canada and Director of the Centre forMetallurgical Process Engineering. Her placeof birth and undergraduate education was SriLanka. In June of this year, she will assume thetitle and office of Vice-President for Research atUBC, one of Canada’s leading research univer-sities.

There is not a single university, govern-ment department or large company in Canada thatcannot identify persons of similar backgrounds,occupying positions of influence and contribut-ing immensely to the quality of life of all Cana-dians. These are the new faces of Canada; theseare persons who entered this country in therecent past attracted by opportunity, economicamong them.

Our quality as a society is enhanced bythem, as it is by ambitious young men fleeingeconomic disaster and willing to work as dish-washers in Montreal restaurants while they gettheir feet beneath them. These persons are notfeatured in headline articles in the press; seldomdo they receive tribute from opponents of immi-gration. They deserve our attention, however,and our admiration, as we wrestle with the thornyquestions surrounding the formulation of wiseCanadian immigration and refugee policies.



As in all instances involving complexsocial decisions, one should seek assistance fromethical norms. Bronowski understood that:“Knowledge is not a loose-leaf notebook offacts,” he has written. “Above all it is a respon-sibility for the integrity of what we are, prima-rily of what we are as ethical creatures”[Bronowski 1973: 438]. I dare offer you onefurther reference to ethics, this one from a vol-ume on foreign policy written five years ago:

Ethics are the fibres of civilized conduct.Interwoven with enlightened laws, theybecome the fabric we call society. A rentin that fabric weakens the structure and thesecurity of all who are dependent upon it.The rent may be caused by the weaknessof international legal regimes, or the cyni-cal assumptions of patronizing and self-serving states. It is the more heinous, andthe more damaging, when done by thosesegments of society so privileged as to mis-take wealth for wisdom, and arrogance fordignity” [Head and Trudeau 1995: 318].

I shared authorship of those words in1995 and offer them immodestly to you today,in 2000. Thank you.

References

Barman, J. (1991). The West Beyond the West. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press.

Bronowski, J. (1973). The Ascent of Man. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.

Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fatesof Human Societies. New York/London: W.W. Norton &Co.

Farer, T. (1995). “How the International System Copeswith Involuntary Migration: Norms, Institutions and StatePractice.” In M. Teitelbaum and M. Weiner eds. Threat-ened People, Threatened Borders: World Migration andUS Policy. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Co.

Head, I. and P.E. Trudeau. (1995). The Canadian Way:Shaping Canada’s Foreign Policy, 1968-1984. Toronto:McClelland & Stewart.

Morton, D. (1994). A Short History of Canada. Toronto:McClelland & Stewart.

Ormsby, M. (1958). British Columbia: A History.Toronto: McMillan.

The Canadian Encyclopedia (1999). “Immigration.”Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.



Hugh SegalPresident

Institute for Research on Public Policy

In recent months, Canada has witnessedfirsthand glaring examples of people smuggling.Hidden in cargo ships or sequestered on barelyseaworthy vessels, hundreds have come to thiscountry in the hope of starting a new life.

Since the summer arrival of the first offour ships off the coast of British Columbia,many column inches have been dedicated to theassertion of our collective right to defend ourinterests against illegal entries into Canada.These incidents have been painted by some as asevere threat to our national security – a threatthat should be dealt with swiftly by the courtsand by Parliament, despite the statistical insig-nificance of the numbers involved.

Sadly, we have begun to imbue immigra-tion policy and the administration of that policywith a series of responsibilities that go wellbeyond what the policy or its administration canor should address. National security is not theunique objective of immigration policy. Viola-tions of the Immigration Act or its regulationsdo not constitute the most serious or threateningcriminal activity in the country, however unac-ceptable any criminal violation most certainly is.

Associating problems of crime, povertyor unemployment solely with immigration is likeclaiming arthritis is caused by skating.

Immigration is a vitally important andoften controversial part of our overall socioeco-

nomic framework and a key variant in our for-eign, education, housing and cultural policy. Butit is wrong to make it, whether in the context ofeconomic migration or refugee determination, theproxy for all strengths or weaknesses in thesepolicy areas that may exist from time to time.

If all one has is a hammer, every pro-blem looks like a nail – or is quickly made tolook like a nail. Immigration policy is not a ham-mer. It is a sensitive and complex instrumentthat attempts to both build the population basewe need and enable us to meet our responsibili-ties toward those not fortunate enough to alreadybe Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. Thisinstrument, at its best, reflects our national val-ues and our national interest simultaneously.

Criminal misrepresentation, fraud andhuman smuggling cannot be accepted. Thatwould only weaken the rules that hundreds ofthousands have followed honourably in the pastto gain lawful entry. The larger issue of howopen our borders are and how many people weadmit every year is as important as what rulesare followed and how they are set or adminis-tered.

Our need for more open and expansiveimmigration is indicated by the demographicchallenges Canada is facing. According to Sta-tistics Canada, the birth rate in Canada has beenin steady decline for more than 20 years. More-over, the natural increase in our population (birthrate minus the mortality rate) accounted for 77percent of the total population growth between1981 and 1986. Between 1991 and 1996, thatnumber had plummeted to less than 60 percent.Even though we must rely on immigration to

* This article was first printed as “We Need an Open Immigration Policy” in The Toronto Star on January 11,2000.



ensure appropriate levels of growth in our popu-lation, the federal government has set new tar-gets for the year 2000 as low as 200,000 newCanadians. The need for a growing economicbase argues for a wide-open immigration policy– not one that is driven by the latest superficialcrisis.

It is not small-minded to want rules andprocedures enforced to regulate the flow ofimmigrants to this country. But it is not soft-minded to understand that seeking an opportu-nity for economic and social progress for one-self or one’s family is neither dishonourable nordeceptive. The host country sets the terms ofentry. Prospective entrants will seek to maxi-

mize their opportunities to gain entry – and, forwhatever reason, there will always be a minorityof prospective immigrants and refugees who optfor illegal entry.

But we must never let the transgressionsof the few prevent us from responding to theneeds of the many, from seizing the opportunityCanada’s desirability as a location represents forour legitimate economic and social interests. Itis in Canada’s interest to adopt an open immi-gration policy. It is therefore in the interest ofCanada to shift the debate to a broader discus-sion on how we can actualize our potential as amodern, pluralist country with the necessary eco-nomic and intellectual scope and breadth.



Susan DavisCo-Author

“Not Just Numbers”

I want to begin by thanking the MaytreeFoundation for thinking to organize this forum.Public education and discourse are essential tothe development of reasonable immigration poli-cies that really do reflect the Canadian public psy-che.

This need was stressed in Not Just Num-bers [Davis et al. 1997] and is even more crucialin light of the recent arrival of groups of personsseeking entry and perhaps asylum in this coun-try and in others. Well, today we are not talkingabout Not Just Numbers.

However, the response to mass influx ofmigrants by the Canadian public and Parliamentalike has everything to do with numbers. This isespecially the case when the means of transpor-tation is by ship, because of the self-containednature of the vessel, framed by the ocean waters,and the way it can be photographed, from the airor while docked, for all to see the mass ofhumanity, squeezing together and leaning overthe sides.

I know that I have evoked a strong pic-ture for everyone in this room. It need not be anegative image, but it seems to be when it isframed by smugglers’ fees, inhuman conditionsand illegal entry - meaning that either the shipmeant to arrive clandestinely or, failing that, itshuman cargo did not carry visas.

Please erase that frame for a minute andremember the many ships carrying immigrantswho, for the most part, arrived here with permis-sion. Last spring, Pier 21 in Halifax reopened toretell that story. It is important to remember that

hundreds of thousands of newcomers enteredthere between 1928 and 1974, as well as at theports of Montreal and Quebec City.

Let me read to you a fairly lengthyexcerpt that covers many of the points we needto speak to today. This excerpt is from a smallbook entitled Pier 21: The Gateway thatChanged Canada, by Trudy DuivenvoordenMitic and J.P. Leblanc [1989: 93-98]. The yearis 1949:

It was a time of hectic confusion at Pier21. So many … were arriving withoutmoney, sponsors and proper documenta-tion… To add to the consternation of thegovernment, DPs [displaced persons] alsobegan arriving on their own, in smallwooden boats … grossly inadequate in therole of passenger transport. Several ofthese crafts were but small coastal vessels,less than 150 feet in length…

The majority of the passengers … werefrom the overrun Baltic countries: Esto-nia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They had trav-elled to Sweden where they had paid fortheir voyage… Throughout the voyagethey were exposed to the elements and sub-jected to an inadequate diet. That most ofthem made it safely to Halifax is nothingshort of miraculous.

On August 19, 1949, the Sarabandearrived in Halifax (the Sarabande was a183 ton minesweeper), carrying a largenumber (238) of DPs, including 60 chil-dren… The captain and shipping agent …had previously been warned not to engagein the transportation of ‘illegal’ refugees.They were subsequently charged under theImmigration Act and fined $400 each.



Like other immigrants, DPs arriving with-out proper documentation were held indetention until their papers could be put inorder. While the government stroveunsuccessfully to keep up with processing,the Pier’s detention quarters were rapidlyfilled to capacity. More space was urgentlyneeded…

At one point, almost 400 DPs were kept indetention while their individual cases werebeing determined and reviewed…

But the sporadic arrivals of these destituteDPs left the government grappling with thelimitations of its own immigration policies.Should these homeless ‘displaced persons’be turned away for failing to comply withthe proper procedure for immigration, orshould they be allowed to stay thereby set-ting a successful example to others whowould attempt to gain entry in the samemanner?

While the issue was being vehementlydebated in Parliament [shades of summer,1987], public interest and awareness con-tinued to grow.

Then suddenly, in a surprise move in earlyNovember 1949, the government announcedthe release of 267 detainees… Meanwhile,another small boat sailing from Sweden …had been intercepted and was being heldin Eire…

… The release of the detainees … was metwith public approval, yet generated agnawing fear that the way had been madeclear for many more boatloads … to comefrom Sweden, rather than through properchannels for immigration. The handlingof the incident off the coast of Eire helped

to dispel the anxiety. The message to thepublic was clear: While the Canadian gov-ernment would not be hardnosed in itsdealings with a destitute people who hadrisked all to step ashore at Pier 21, Canadaand other countries would, nonetheless,come down hard on the clandestine opera-tion of the transport of refugees from Swe-den across the Atlantic.

While the events just described are morethan 50 years old, the themes are strikinglysimilar - no documentation, detention of largenumbers pending interviews and case review, asympathetic yet wary public, heated exchangesin Parliament and, last but foremost, desperatepeople taking desperate measures.

At that time, from media reports andreturning soldiers, Canadians knew very well thatthe Nazis had overrun the Baltics and totallydestroyed those countries. Today, there is littleif any public knowledge of conditions in theFujian province. Equally, in 1986 and 1987,Canadians had little knowledge of conditions inSri Lanka and India.

Therein lies a large part of the problemwhere public interest and sympathy need to beinvoked. Where there is all-out war, genocide,ethnic cleansing, one sees a tremendous outpour-ing by Canadians to help in any way they can.Media coverage of the civil war in Sri Lanka andof similar turmoil in other parts of Asia is spo-radic. In some cases, these situations are com-plex, hard to faithfully transmit in any nuancedmanner to our ‘sound bite’ society.

The general knowledge that the majorityof the world’s population lives in misery broughton by poverty, war and environmental degrada-tion seems to make the Canadian public uneasy,



raising the same fear of 50 years past that theymay all try to enter, en masse and without legalpermission.

This is a peculiar state of affairs if wethink of Canada as such a different place than itwas 50 years ago. Canadian society is sodiverse, many of us originating from the verycountries from where these new boat peoplecome. Professor Irving Abella and others havewritten about this phenomenon, remarking thatit is common for each new wave of immigrants,once integrated, to distrust and even ostracizethose who follow thereafter.

Yet this rejection is more than humannature. It is very much tied up in our immigra-tion processes. Some immigrants apply throughimmigration channels and wait several years intheir home country. Others, whom they judge tohave lived in the same difficult situation, arrivein Canada without a visa and are allowed to stayas a refugee. Just try to convince the formergroup that the Convention Refugee Determina-tion Division knows how to discern the real refu-gees from the ‘unreal.’ Or, try to explain theniceties and what we legal types call ‘terms ofart’ in the legal definition of the word ‘refugee.’

There is another matter relating to the per-ception of the boat people. Many Canadians liketo presume that everyone who arrived illegallyat Pier 21 was allowed to stay. That is simplynot the case. A small number were deported -and for not very respectful reasons, such asnationality. Others were deported because theydid not have sponsors, or could not come up withdocumentation.

Likewise, not all boat people from Viet-nam, even in the early years of their departure insmall boats to other parts of Asia, were givensettlement in third countries. After interviews

by UN officials or officers from potential receiv-ing countries, people were rejected because theywere in fact part of the Viet Cong, or becausethey were criminals or, worse, because they werementally ill or physically disabled.

My point is that we should resist tryingto describe the members of an arriving group withgeneralizations. This perception does not leadto an informed public reaching informed opin-ions. In an era of globalized economies and trade,it is no longer the case that we can presumehomogeneity of the group, of their reasons forleaving the country of origin, or of their motiva-tion for entering Canada.

Let me give you a very recent and well-publicized example. The Ontario ProvincialPolice in Wallaceburg, Ontario, stopped 10 teen-age women without status in Canada - allegedlyoriginating from the People’s Republic of Chinaand allegedly en route to Walpole Island. It wasalso alleged that they were attempting illegalentry into the United States. The demographicsof this group are well known - teenage andfemale. What else do we need to know to forman opinion on whether any receiving countryshould allow them to remain? We should askwhat conditions they faced in their homes, whateach is looking for and what conditions they willface in the country that was their favoured desti-nation.

In short, having had the benefit of beinginside the work of our and other nations’ immi-gration authorities, I still assume that people fleemisery, but no longer assume they seek freedom.This was most poignantly illustrated in a recentdocumentary on the smuggling of Fujians to theUnited States. The interviewer asked a youngman, working as an indentured slave in NewYork, where he had the most freedom. Withouta moment’s hesitation, he answered “China.”



This change from smugglers who usedto hold out the promise of freedom to the smug-glers who now promise economic security, doesnot lend itself to public sympathy or understand-ing. Polls have been suggesting since the end ofthe last recession that Canadians have great com-passion for those who are refugees in the senseof the UN Convention relating to the Status ofRefugees, in that they fear persecution becauseof their race or political opinion. The same pollsshow that Canadians are wary of the ‘queuejumpers.’ The conundrum is and always will bethat one cannot pick out the refugees from thequeue jumpers until they have been through somekind of interview and evaluation process.

And that is why a fair and efficient refu-gee status determination system has become apreoccupation to so many. However, others dopersist in the view that the sorting out of refu-gees from queue jumpers can be made outsideof Canada, such as in the United States. Stillothers continue to make flawed generalizationsabout the arrivals, presuming that they knowenough about them to conclude that the arrivalsare not bona fide asylum seekers before they land.These assumptions lead to calls for immediatedeportation, without access to the refugee statusdetermination system.

Surely the best response is the oldest. Itwas described in the excerpt I read earlier: “Themessage to the public was clear: While theCanadian government would not be hardnosedin its dealings with a destitute people who hadrisked all to step ashore at Pier 21, Canada andother countries would, nonetheless come downhard on the clandestine operation of the trans-port of refugees…” [Mitic and Leblanc 1989:93-98].

I ask you to recall the leadership Canadatook some 20 years ago when hijacking of

airplanes became a major international concern.The endangerment of so many human lives inone act of hijacking helped to move the inter-national community to build international lawthat recognized this act as an international crime.

I would argue that the case also can bemade where people are placed in life-threaten-ing situations at sea, or in cargo containers, oron small rafts. There needs to be internationallaw to address the crime of people-smugglingand, most importantly, the lives of those smug-gled need – somehow - to be protected.

However, this response creates anotherproblem. If Canada becomes too good at con-trolling illegal arrivals, how do the bona fideasylum-seekers (however broadly or narrowlydefined) arrive to make their claims?

It has always stuck me as profoundlywrong to be generous only to those with the goodfortune to make it safely to our shores.

To answer the question posed by today’sforum - “Economic Migrants or Refugees?” -my answer is, I don’t know and won’t knowuntil each person has been interviewed.

Of course, the real question for me is:“What does Canada owe to each migrant?” Tothe refugee, Canada owes protection fromrefoulement in accordance with this country’sinternational obligations. To the economicimmigrant, in law Canada owes that person dueprocess.

But it is incredible to imagine that Canadawould develop immigration, international devel-opment, environment and foreign affairs policieswithout taking into account the 60 to 70 millionpeople estimated by the Worldwatch Institute tobe on the move right now, in addition to



UNHCR’s (the United Nations High Commis-sion for Refugees) 21 million refugees.

Immigration policies that take into accountthe massive movement of people globally couldinclude the following. First, create immigrationcategories that reflect realistic profiles beyondthose of family, business and skilled worker andalways mindful of the ‘modern pioneer.’ Sec-ond, use information technology to allow flex-ibility rather than rigidity in considering the casesof prospective immigrants, perhaps to the pointwhere we would be able to rethink the corner-stone of the present Immigration Act, that allvisas must be obtained outside Canada. Finally,come to terms with our deportation policies.Canadians need to confront the fact that, no mat-ter how flexible our immigration laws, there willalways be those who fall outside of them. We

have to be comfortable that deportation lawsreflect Canadian values. These are the lessonsof history.

* This historical overview concerning persons who arriveden masse at Canadian shores is the personal view of Ms.Davis and does not reflect the opinion of the Department

of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

References

Davis, S., R. Kunin and R. Trempe. (1997). Not JustNumbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigra-tion. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and GovernmentServices Canada.

Duivenvoorden Mitic, T. and J. P. Leblanc. (1989). Pier21: The Gateway that Changed Canada. Hantsport, NovaScotia: Lancelot Press.



The Honourable Barbara McDougallPresident

Canadian Institute of International Affairs

Of all the portfolios in government, therecan be none with the same human dimension asimmigration.

At any given time, there are one millionpeople around the world who have made anenquiry at one of our posts to come to Canada,or who have actually proceeded to file an appli-cation. When I visited our Immigration Officein the High Commission in New Delhi, therewere 500,000 little cards filed away, each withthe details of an individual seeking to build a newlife here.

One does not have to over-dramatize torecognize that every single one of these peoplehas a dream about the future, and a story to tell.

It is against this backdrop that the Minis-ter of Immigration attempts to juggle the com-peting interests of Canadian employers, immi-grants in Canada with family in the old country,displaced persons living in fear at the centre ofthe world’s trouble spots, refugees in countriesof first asylum, claimants who have made it toour shores, provincial governments that provideservices to immigrants and seek to attract the bestand the brightest to their province - and the refu-gee aid groups, churches and others.

It is also fair to say that, on matters relat-ing to immigration, individual Canadians haveviews that are frequently vociferously and alwaysfirmly expressed. I make this point because it isimportant to remember that one cannot talk aboutone part of the immigration issue, or one kind ofimmigrant, without seeing it as part of a whole.

I take it for granted that Canada wantsand needs immigrants for all the reasons sooften put forward - to refresh the workforce, toadd to the talent pool, to bring families together,to rescue and provide a new life for the hopelessand terrorized of other lands. Yet any discus-sion of immigration divides Canadians more thanit unites us. As Irving Abella once pointed out,Canada didn’t really have an immigration policyfor the first 85 years of its constitutional history[Abella 1988].

I am not going to list all the well-knownbenefits of immigration. I do want to point outthat those benefits are not dependent on wherethe immigrants come from, or how well-trainedthey are for the labour market, or whether theyarrive with a good grasp of the language orwhether they are sponsored family members orrefugees or whatever.

Barring the wholesale import of terror-ists or criminals, which is much more rare thanthe gate-closers would have us believe, on bal-ance all immigrants are contributors to Canadianlife. And, there are certainly many Canadiansborn here whose contribution is much more mod-est.

Having said that, I do urge that we havean immigration policy, that it be transparent andthat it set some objectives. The Minister’s pri-mary challenge is to establish and adhere to acoherent policy, and not just get caught in a con-tinuum of crisis management, which seems tobe the sorry lot of most Ministers of Immigra-tion.

An immigration policy should include amission statement, reinforcing the county’s com-mitment to a transparent and open policy - acommitment which should never be withdrawn



and which cannot be repeated often enough. And,equally, the policy should reinforce Canada’scommitment to embrace Convention refugeeswherever they may be from and to whateverextent possible.

Once the policy is established, the objec-tives, numerical and otherwise, can be establishedby the Minister after consultations which fre-quently take the form of arguments with prov-inces and nongovernmental organizations as towhether we are planning for enough refugees orcarpenters or entrepreneurs or francophones, andso on. I am far more concerned about gettingthe principles right than I am about the numbersand categories, particularly since the achievementof consensus is elusive indeed.

Let me outline what I think the ministe-rial objectives should be. I am eager that wethrow open our doors to the bright, the young,the skilled and the educated, who can add somuch to our economic and cultural life. Havingsaid that, I do not have a lot of faith in the proc-ess whereby what is now the Human ResourcesDevelopment Department decrees what skills arescarce in Canada and therefore what potentialimmigrants should get priority. I remember oneyear, when I was Minister, that the job classifi-cation at the top of the list was opera singers;another favourite was cake decorators.

Family members? Of course, althoughI am less sympathetic to aunts, uncles and cous-ins than I am to spouses and children.

Convention refugees fleeing persecutionor war must be a priority. Canada should leadthe way in having proactive policies regardingrefugees, both within our own country, and inworking with other countries to broaden supportfor refugee settlement worldwide, as we did fol-

lowing the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 andwith the Vietnamese boat people in 1979.

The real debate is over the handling ofthose who arrive on our borders unannounced,either at the end of an excruciating voyage, orvia any of our American crossing points.

When we set up the current refugee deter-mination system, we did so in an effort to treatall claimants fairly, to satisfy the Charter ofRights and to reach decisions quickly so thatclaimants were not forced to survive some eter-nal limbo.

The system was developed in closecooperation with the United Nations High Com-mission for Refugees, and it actually works, if itis given sufficient resources, and if the RefugeeBoard members are appropriately qualified. Irecall at one point, after dealing with the initialbacklog of 125,000 claimants, and running atmore normal levels, that the Board was able toprocess claims in four to six weeks. I would hopewe still can.

The effectiveness of the system dependson timeliness. It also depends on the integrity ofits decisions. But here is why refugee claimantsmust be considered in the context of a broader,transparent immigration policy: All of our proc-esses for dealing with immigrant applications,in order to be effective, must be timely, fair andconsistent.

At the moment, to paraphrase a success-ful Canadian businessman of Chinese extraction:“In Canada too hard to be immigrant, too easy tobe refugee” [CRC Townhall Panel 1999].

Canada has the reputation in many coun-tries of being very hard to enter through normal



immigration channels because of delays or cum-bersome processes or endless paperwork. If theimmigration system breaks down, it is not longbefore the refugee determination system breaksdown and vice versa. One can argue that thenumber of claimants in Canada is not large andthat little harm is done - and perhaps some posi-tive good - by allowing most of them to stay,but in the broader context, it is wrong.

Not only does it offend those who havetaken the trouble to come here legally, or whoare patiently waiting for sponsored family mem-bers, but it makes cynics of us all.

People like to come to Canada not onlyfor economic opportunity - although that is aprimary motivation - but also because it is a sta-ble country, a democracy, governed by the ruleof law. Canada’s refugee policy must also beguided by the rule of law.

It is offensive that people without docu-ments manipulate our system. It means their firstact on coming here is based on dishonesty and aviolation of the rule of law, which underlies thedemocracy they want to live under. It is equallyoffensive that children who are detained are madeto disembark in chains.

There are always exceptions and, in myview, the Minister should always maintain thepower to review claims on compassionategrounds. It is part of ministerial responsibilityto remain engaged in a human way, in this mosthuman of portfolios.

As we look ahead, we can see thatmigration, legal and illegal, is going to increaseexponentially. Technology makes it easy to fal-sify documents, to know which countries offerthe most opportunity and which are vulnerableto quick and illegal entry. Environmental andother disasters may force us to examine our defi-nitions of refugees and our criteria for entry. Butthe most urgent requirement is that we ensurethat our immigration policy and system workeffectively for Canada and for those who chooseto come here.

References

Abella, I. (1988). “Panel Discussion on Canadian Immi-gration Objectives: Levels, Composition and Directions.”In C. Beach and A. Green eds. Policy Forum on the Roleof Immigration in Canada’s Future. Kingston: JohnDeutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy,Queen’s University.

CRC Townhall Panel. (1999). The Magazine, Septem-ber.



Jeffrey ReitzProfessor of SociologyUniversity of Toronto

The purpose of this presentation is tobring to bear some relevant findings from eco-nomic and social research on the economic suc-cess of immigrants in the new so-called ‘knowl-edge’ economy.

First, much of current research assumes,takes for granted, that the economic success ofimmigrants is critical to the success of the Cana-dian immigration program and should be maxi-mized. The success of the immigration programitself has been an important part of Canada’ssuccess as a nation. For immigrants, the watch-word is ‘higher is better,’ since immigrants whodo well:

· pay more taxes

· use less social services (in fact, the educa-tion for which they were selected was paidfor elsewhere)

· buy more goods

· start more businesses

· create more jobs.

The economic success of immigrants iskey. Some opponents of immigration underesti-mate it, wrongly seeing immigrants as a welfareburden, while others overestimate it, viewingimmigrants as a privileged group displacingnative-born Canadians when it comes to jobs.

Most people believe that, apart frompolitical refugees, immigration should primarilyserve the economic interests of Canada - as

opposed to, for example, the economic interestsof immigrants who want to come to Canada.

When put in perspective of contemporarytrends, it is clear that the significance of theissue of immigrant success is likely to grow.Pressures from rapid technological change, glo-bal competition, the emergence of a knowledgeeconomy, and rising educational levels andemphasis on credentials - all have transformedlabour markets in Canada.

These pressures have altered the cir-cumstances faced by newly arriving immigrants,and challenge their capacity to succeed and flour-ish. Immigrants used to have a relatively easytime because they often had more formal educa-tional qualifications than native-born Canadians.So, even if not every qualification was recog-nized, immigrants could ‘afford it’ - i.e., theystill did fairly well.

The credential squeeze is increasinglyaffecting immigrants due to the changes that areoccurring in the labour market. In order to keepthe immigration program strong, it will be nec-essary to address the issue of recognition of for-eign credentials even more forthrightly thanbefore. This will place more attention on thequestion of immigrant economic success.

Let me expand briefly on these twopoints. When policy changes opened immigra-tion to all sources and produced new entrantsfrom the Caribbean, Asia and elsewhere, immi-grants did relatively well - even though the quali-fications of these newer immigrant groups werediscounted by 15 to 25 percent for males com-pared to those with comparable formal qualifi-cations among native-born men, and discountedeven more for immigrant women. The savinggrace was that immigrants’ qualifications werefar in excess of those of the native-born counter-



parts. These immigrants had two years’ moreeducation on average than native-born Cana-dians, and twice the proportion of universitydegrees.

A controversy exists over whether thisnon-recognition of qualifications is justified ornot and whether or not it reflects poorer qualityof the immigrant qualifications. The researchhas not resolved this controversy completely, buthas established that in the Canadian labour mar-ket the value of one particular immigrant quali-fication - foreign experience - is zero.

First, foreign work experience is com-pletely discounted by Canadian employers. Thisfact is confirmed in data from every data sourceincluding census, Citizenship and ImmigrationCanada studies and independent universityresearch. Yet Citizenship and ImmigrationCanada continues to be convinced that the workexperience of immigrants is valuable and shouldbe the basis for selection. In other words, Citi-zenship and Immigration Canada is convincedthat Canadian employers are unjustified in dis-counting this particular qualification.

Second, the value of foreign educationvaries more by the race than by the apparent qual-ity of the educational institutions and professionalstandards in the countries of origin of the immi-grants. For example, the fact that engineeringeducational and professional standards in HongKong - however they compare to Canadianstandards - compare favourably with standardsin some other countries of origins for persons ofcomparable cultural and racial background doesnot appear to influence their success in Canadaas much as that cultural and racial background.This strongly suggests that it is recognition ofqualifications, rather than the qualificationsthemselves, which is problematic.

Universities, which are producers of cre-dentials and are in perhaps the best position toevaluate foreign credentials, have this problem.Applicants to university graduate programsoften present undergraduate qualifications fromAsian or African schools that are not evaluatedwith any great sophistication. If universities,which specialize in the production of credentials,have trouble, it is not hard to see why employers(the consumers of credentials) also would havetrouble.

Research could do a lot more to estimatethe economic significance of the credential rec-ognition problem. The existing research doespoint to the problem as being very significant,and likely to become more so as the knowledgeeconomy - the credentials economy - develops.My own guess is that credentials from LatinAmerica and Asia have very little value inCanada, and that the main reason immigrantswith such credentials do better at all is simplybecause as people they tend to be smarter andmore resourceful.

Regarding trends in immigrant successover time, the economic success of immigrantsis falling. The position of each newly arrivingcohort of immigrants is increasingly difficult.Those arriving in the 1990s have had more diffi-culty than those arriving in the 1980s, while thosearriving in the 1980s have had more difficultythan those in the 1970s.

For example, of adult immigrant menarriving in the late 1970s, census data show that85 percent had jobs by 1981 - almost as high asthe 90 percent for native-born men - whileimmigrant men’s average earnings were 80 per-cent of native-born men.



Among adult immigrant men who arrivedin the early 1990s, the proportion with jobs haddropped to only 66 percent from 85 percent by1996, while their average earnings had declinedto 60 percent of the average earnings of native-born men.

Similarly, of adult immigrant womenarriving in the late 1970s, 60 percent had jobs in1981 - about the same as the 63 percent fornative-born women. These adult immigrantwomen on average earned 73 percent of whatnative-born women made. But of adult immi-grant women who arrived in the early 1990s, theproportion of immigrant women with jobs wasonly 52 percent in 1996, while the proportion ofnative-born women with jobs had risen from 63percent to 73 percent. At the same time, theseadult immigrant women’s earnings had declinedfrom 73 percent on average to only about 62 per-cent relative to native-born women.

These new immigrants are having moretrouble despite being better educated and havingmore university degrees. In short, past immi-grants were qualified for top jobs and acceptedmiddle-level positions, while today they arequalified for middle-level jobs and end up at thebottom. Why?

Part of the reason for the slump in theearly 1990s was due to the economic cycle. Butthis is not the only reason, because businesscycles affect mainly the newest arrivals. The gen-eral downward trend is also visible for those hav-ing lived a longer period of time in Canada.

Instead, the basic reason is that theCanadian economy and society are changingtoward a more competitive knowledge economy.These changes appear to have created three newdifficulties for immigrants:

· educational qualifications of native-bornCanadians have risen rapidly, so that despitehigher levels of education, immigrants stillfall further behind in terms of numbers ofyears of education

· immigrants’ foreign credentials are notbeing accepted

· the value of credentials is rising for native-born Canadians and falling for the newimmigrants.

Ironically, the importance of credentialsdoes not displace discrimination. One mightexpect that the fact that Canadian employers arebecoming more credential-conscious might havehelped immigrants by making job assessmentsmore objective. But it has not worked this way.Instead, immigrants are hurt because foreign cre-dentials are simply unknown to Canadianemployers. In addition, the earnings penaltiesfor not having recognized skills are increasing.

These three trends are part of the basicinstitutional structure of Canadian society, andare not going to change. The economic successof immigrants will become an increasing prob-lem and Canada will be forced to choosebetween:

· decreasing its emphasis on immigration

· increasing its emphasis on assisting Cana-dian employers to more effectively utilizeimmigrant skills in the new economic envi-ronment.

Assuming we remain committed toimmigration, the challenge increasingly will beto address the economic success of immigrants



in the knowledge economy - and this is a bigjob that we have only just barely begun. Recog-nition of qualifications within the established pro-fessions is still only barely begun, and this is justthe tip of the iceberg.

Addressing the economic needs of poten-tial migrants who do not fit into the emergingknowledge economy will be seen as part of theproblem of global inequality, and this too willbecome a more pressing issue.



Demetrios PapademetriouCo-Director, International Migration Policy

Program, Carnegie Endowmentfor International Peace

Clandestine migration will continue tochallenge both the West’s control mechanismsand its political patience and to create popularanxiety. By undermining the principle that suc-cessful societies are governed by the rule of law,illegal immigration also undermines key societalinstitutions and, if left unattended, stokes xeno-phobia and typically leads to increasinglyextreme responses. Illegal immigration thuschallenges economically better-off societies toprotect their borders, labour markets and socialservice infrastructure, as well as their ethnic andcultural (linguistic and religious) balances.

In the many highly diverse societies inEurope, the Middle East, South and SoutheastAsia, and elsewhere, where basic governanceschemes have come about after hard-fought com-promises, political equilibrium in many waysrests on assumptions that the ethnic balanceamong different groups will remain constant.When that balance is affected in significant waysfrom unauthorized and in some cases authorizedbut poorly-managed immigration, societal divi-sions can and do ensue.

In contrast to these clear political andsocial dangers of illegal immigration, many ofthe estimates about its economic downsides cur-rently in vogue throughout the advanced worldare often contrived and reflect healthy amountsof disingenuous analyses and variable, but typi-cally high levels of political hypocrisy. Moreimportantly, they fail to point directly to oraddress effectively one of illegal immigration’smost important allies - i.e., unsound or failedsocial and economic policies.

All major forms of illegal immigration -such as clandestine or fraudulent entry, legalentry followed by the overstaying of one’s visaperiod and violating the terms and conditions ofa visa - are likely to intensify and will becomeever better organized. By contrast, ‘law-and-order’ responses to it, though increasingly ‘har-monized,’ will continue to prove no more equalto the challenge than they are today.

The typical ‘full-service’ menu of responsesto unauthorized migration includes two sets ofbasic law-and-order responses, one that is intel-ligence-heavy and one that is based in diplomacyin its broadest sense. Most analysts agree thatthe latter two hold a much more promising pros-pect for success than the law-and-order oneswhich should be seen increasingly as ‘first gen-eration’ responses. Of course, the overallresponse (sic) will need to retain substantial ele-ments of all four.

The two law-and-order responses focuson controlling entry of people involved with clan-destine migration. The first kind of law-and-order response focusses on preventing unauthor-ized entry through ‘entry or border controls.’Among the most commonly used entry controlsare extending and tightening visa requirements,establishing very substantial carrier sanctions forthe transportation of improperly documentedpassengers, and investing heavily in physical,electronic and human inspection to control bor-ders.

A 10-year-old, largely Canadian innova-tion also stations a handful of a country’s immi-gration inspectors at foreign airports from whichan unauthorized flow commences or which isused as a staging area or collection and transitpoint for smuggling rings. The objective of suchinitiatives is to help airline ticket agents andlocal authorities identify and reject fraudulent



documents and thus divert the flow. A variantof this innovation offers more systematic andlong-term ‘targeted technical assistance’ toauthorities of countries identified as weak linksin the effort against organized unauthorizedmigration.

In recent years, in an effort to reduce thenumber of presumably fraudulent asylum appli-cations, the advanced industrial West has reliedincreasingly on a variety of procedural obstaclesto lodging an asylum claim. These measureshave had almost instant success in reducing suchapplications substantially and, in some cases,such as those of Germany and the United States,dramatically. The UN High Commissioner forRefugees and refugee advocates, however, havebeen sceptical about the legality of some of theseprocedures and have condemned some of themas inappropriate on humanitarian grounds.

The second kind of law enforcementapproach emphasizes strategies for identifyingand removing unauthorized immigrants after theyhave managed to enter a country. These aredivided into two major forms - one of which isstill emerging.

The first form focusses on interiorenforcement - that is, the basic police worknecessary to identify and remove unauthorizedforeigners. Increasingly, interior enforcement empha-sizes more intense cooperation and coordinationamong a variety of police and police-like agen-cies (in the US, the formation of multi-agencytask forces focusing on organized criminalactivity that relates to illegal immigration isbecoming nearly routine) and gives immigrationenforcement agencies additional legal powers,some of which can be quite extraordinary.

Among these powers are extendingasset-seizure authority to the immigration agen-

cies so that they can confiscate the property andother resources of those that engage in migranttrafficking, and restricting as severely as politi-cally possible access to the protection of thecourts by unauthorized immigrants. Mostadvanced industrial societies now rely on suchand similar ‘tools.’

The second form targets the labour mar-ket based on the widely held assumption that theoverwhelming majority of unauthorized immi-grants seek work. This strategy is known as‘employer sanctions’ and requires employers toverify that job applicants are authorized to work.Employers are penalized, often severely, for fail-ing to do so and/or for employing anyone with-out the proper work-authorizing documentation.

The still-emerging and final form ofinterior controls is a variant of the labour marketcontrol strategy. The principal differencebetween the two is that this last form targets theunauthorized workers themselves, either prefer-entially or, more typically, in addition to theiremployers. The penalties it relies upon are simi-lar in that they combine ‘asset forfeiture’ (in theform of substantial fines) with incarceration. ThePersian Gulf States, some East and South Asianstates, and, increasingly, Japan are champions ofthis approach.

The third and fourth types of responsesto clandestine migration involve strengtheningand using the resources of the intelligencecommunity. The third type of response reliesextensively on the use of intelligence resources,international cooperation among intelligenceagencies, and such more ‘classic’ police tacticsas the use of informants and the penetration ofcriminal networks by undercover officers.

Under this response, key objectivesinclude understanding how the various networks



are organized and relate to each other, and get-ting to know their routes, their infrastructure andresource bases, their accomplices throughout thetypically circuitous and long journeys, and their‘clients’ at destination. Only then can authori-ties shut down a particular ring rather than sim-ply arresting a few operatives and a group ofunauthorized immigrants. Legally sanctionedcooperation that meets each state’s legal require-ments about privacy and related concerns amongintelligence agencies appears to be vital to thiseffort, as are patience and a sustained commit-ment of financial and human resources.

Two challenges appear to be particularlydaunting. First, the most sophisticated and wellresourced among these syndicates apparently useconstantly shifting organizational paradigmsdesigned precisely to defend the organizationfrom being penetrated and dissolved by theauthorities. Second, illegal immigration controlshave created powerful market forces that cancorrupt officials at any level, as well as lucrativeblack markets for all types of products and serv-ices. These forces cannot be managed by lawenforcement in a single country alone, but alsorequire the cooperation of sending and transitcountries.

The final response to unauthorizedmigration through diplomacy or foreign policyis less well developed than the other three, butnonetheless is thought by many analysts to holdthe most promise for a cooperative and compre-hensive management of international migration,including clandestine migration.

This approach1 seeks to engage key send-ing states in substantive negotiations that mayinclude the following:

· Making conditional offers of more opentrading and related relationships to a stateor group of states with which a receiving

state has long and complex immigrationrelationships. This approach is modelledboth on the NAFTA and on the initiallyGerman (but now EU-wide) approach firsttoward the Eastern European states and, inthe future, (possibly) toward the states alongthe Mediterranean littoral.

· Offering substantial physical and socialinfrastructure-improving assistance (asappropriate) to the same types of state(s) asabove. This is an approach advocated bymany as the next step to the NAFTA andone that has long underpinned the evolutionof the European integration project.2

· Extending to nationals of some of the statesthat now send large numbers of unauthor-ized workers to a receiving state greater andmore organized access to that country’slabour market. This is a model relied uponincreasingly, although often unevenly, bysome immigrant-receiving states in severalworld regions. Among them are: Germany(primarily with Polish and Czech citizens),the United States (with its contiguous coun-tries and, to a more limited degree, withsome of the Central American and Carib-bean countries) and South Africa (with mostof its immediate neighbours but also withseveral of the member states of the South-ern Africa Development Cooperation bloc).

In addition, the foreign policy or diplo-macy-heavy response involves investments inthree additional types of initiatives. First is thepursuit of a UN Convention against trafficking,with an emphasis on criminalizing the organizedtrafficking in women and minors. This Conven-tion is pushed very hard by the European Union(EU) and English-speaking North America3 butis supported by a variety of states. The comple-tion of this Convention is expected in this ses-sion of the UN General Assembly.



Second is an initiative that employsintense bilateral diplomatic engagement as ameans of ensuring that origin and transit statescooperate with destination countries in accept-ing those nationals who may be deported forimmigration-related violations. The intensifica-tion of such removals has required increasingdiplomatic investments and is slowly nudginginternational migration toward the ‘high politics’end of the foreign policy continuum.

As a result, migration controls are likelyto be found increasingly on the agenda of broaderdiscussions about trade, commerce and evenregional security negotiations. American and,increasingly, Canadian and EU negotiations withChina are among the most significant efforts inthis new genre of how states choose to use theirforeign policy capital.

Finally, several states have begun to cre-ate regional mechanisms for addressing one formof unwanted migration or asylum by agreeing inadvance which state would be responsible foradjudicating asylum claims. This effort proceedsfrom the assumption that most asylum claims are‘fraudulent’ and seeks to deny asylum seekersmultiple opportunities for lodging a claim. Pre-sumably, the pre-agreed allocation of the ‘bur-den’ for adjudicating a claim also puts states onnotice to be more careful in their issuance ofvisas by making the issuer take responsibility fora claim.

The member states of the EU haverecently ratified such an agreement - the DublinConvention - and Canada and the United Stateshave been discussing a similar arrangement.Although the two governments have twice agreedon an approach, opposition by refugee advocacyorganizations in both countries, and remainingconcerns among key governmental sectors in theUS, have stymied efforts to ratify the proposedinitiative.

In conclusion, it is increasingly clear thatcoordinated combinations of these responses,together with extensive reliance on domestic andinternational intelligence cooperation that targetsorganized smuggling syndicates, are likely tobecome the dominant ‘new’ illegal immigrationmanagement policy paradigm over the next 15years. If this ‘diplomatic’ strategy is pursueddiligently, the prospects for success may in factincrease geometrically.

Endnotes

1. I have chosen to emphasize only the ‘carrot’ aspects ofthis response here. The ‘sticks’ would be equally impor-tant subject for a serious policy conversation. A simplerule of thumb should be remembered in this last regard:The offering of carrots often makes sticks (and, particu-larly, the threat of employing them) more effective.

2. It is important to note here that there is now virtualconsensus among analysts that both of these types of ini-tiatives just identified are not likely to stem unauthorizedmigration in the short to medium term (five to 15 years).There are many reasons for this conclusion. They includethe fact that the relationship between poverty and emigra-tion is both indirect and very complex. For instance,extreme poverty is thought to discourage migrationbecause it is typically associated with limited access toinformation and even less access to the resources requiredfor successful emigration - while the alleviation of somepoverty through development (and the increased accessto information and ties or access to another country itmakes possible) may in fact facilitate further migration.Furthermore, the state that risks its treasure in the devel-opment of another country or, in the case of integrationagreements, a region, is often impatient about reaping someof the migration-specific benefits. Typically, however,such benefits are not available until the later years.

3. The G-7 have also targeted this area for closer coop-eration (in the context of their concerns with organizedcriminal networks), as have the Intergovernmental Con-sultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies inEurope, North America and Australia, an informal seniorlevel Geneva-based group in existence since the late 1980sthat focusses largely on the exchange of ideas and ‘bestpractices’ about immigration controls.



T. Sher SinghLawyer and Columnist (The Toronto Star)

Some time ago, a shipload of refugeeslanded on Canada’s East Coast and the usualfuror greeted their arrival. Actually it was morethan just a furor: it was the usual rhetoric, loudand charged, blared from newspaper headlines,from every pulpit, from street corners, especiallyon the West Coast. Reporters and newspapereditors had a heyday.

Editorials told us in no uncertain termswhat the feeling was in some quarters. And togive you a taste of what was said, here is the gistof what one editorial in a prestigious West Coastjournal said. I saw the piece when somebodygave it to me a few years ago and it had an illus-tration of one of the would-be refugees who hadarrived on this ship. And here is what it said:

We have once again witnessed the arrivalon our shores of a group of people whowish to make this country their home.Let’s take a close look at this new bunch.To begin with, they practise a faith abhor-rent to us. Some speak a language we donot understand. Those who do speak Eng-lish, do so with so thick an accent that wecan barely understand them. They havethe same difficulty, I’m sure, in under-standing ours. They are clannish bynature. Their women folk, as we alreadyknow, stick to each other and will notintermingle with ours. Their ways arealien to ours. They wear strange headgearand their garb is of course different fromours. They even wear knives on their per-son. Even their food is different from ours;in fact, they eat the very things that wechoose to throw away. To put it mildly,there is nothing in common between this

group and the people of this land, and itcannot be said in strong enough words thatwe will be doing both them and ourselvesa favour if we put them all on the first boatback to where they came from. It will helpavoid much distress to all concerned. Weurge our elected representatives to do theneedful.

Now do any of you remember this par-ticular shipload? Some of you are nodding yourheads. And I should tell you that if you do, itwould be a miracle because the shipload I amtalking about is a shipload of Scotsmen whoarrived on our East Coast in the 18th century.Their Catholic faith, their thick brogue, theirkilts, their different head gear, their habit ofwearing a knife, can you imagine, wearing aknife on the person - they did not call it a kirpan,though - but their clannishness, their traditionof eating haggis - the very things we throw away!Everything became the basis for saying ‘no, thedoor is closed.’

Not much has changed since then, has it?When I first read of the gist of this editorial, likesome of you, I thought, it could not be about any-thing but the shipload that arrived in Nova Scotia,two shiploads actually, in 1986 and 1987 – onein Halifax, if I remember correctly, and the sec-ond in Newfoundland, the Tamil boat and thenthe Sikh boat.

Has anything changed between the treat-ment of those Scottish refugees two centuries agoand the treatment of the Sikh refugees a decadeand a half ago? It was then being argued that theScots were here as economic migrants, thoughthe actual words and terms may ha

Economic Migrants or Refugees? Trends in Global Migration · 2017. 11. 16. · Economic Migrants or...

Documents

Transcript of Economic Migrants or Refugees? Trends in Global Migration · 2017. 11. 16. · Economic Migrants or...