Canadians Adopted Refugee Families for a Year, Then Came ‘Month 13’
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
There is a very direct analogy to this in the early history of Islam: http://www.questionsonislam.com/article/brotherhood-establis... where the Muslims who fled persecution in Mecca were set up with sponsor families in Medina who helped them adapt and stand on their feet. To see that same behaviour in our purportedly selfish day and age warms me to a whole another level.
There are 600+ million hispanics in North and South America, Canada has managed to allow a whopping ~400,000 of them in, representing a minuscule 1.2% of the country. The US is over 20% hispanic and about 16% black; Canada is 2.9% black. It sure looks like someone has a claim to the land.
Canada's merit based immigration system was designed to intentionally keep poor immigrants out (ie the majority of the population of Latin America).
New Mexico for instance still has families with large tracts of land granted by the Spanish Crown before the US even existed.
All of those are orthogonal to the demographics.
Where demographics come into play is that, in my experience, the issues of First Nations people are more a part of common Canadian politics than Native American issues are in the USA. That focus likely also plays against a sense of other Canadians feeling too rooted there.
Contrast this to places like continental Europe and the US where geography has not provided natural barriers and the gap between immigration policy and reality can be considerable. This gap leads to a high degree of immigration cynicism from the local populace because they perceive the government to be unable to control it. He considers this unaddressed cynicism to be a contributing factor to the wave of nationalism that's going around.
---
"In Toronto, three-quarters (75.8%) of its population consisted of people who were foreign-born or had at least one parent born outside Canada." [1]
Canada has a LOT of immigrants.
It's true that Canada doesn't have a lot of black or Hispanic people, but a quick look at a few sources suggests they have at least as many visible minorities as the US. (Both countries are close to 20% visible minorities, but I'm having trouble finding comparable numbers.) Most of Canada's visible minorities come from Asia.
[0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01... [1] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...
Grandparent comment is talking about how most Canadian immigrants are filtered via k-selection.
On the other hand in America the Black and Hispanic minorities did not arrive here via a k-selection strategy, however Asian immigrants did, and it is reflected everywhere.
"with enough support, poor Muslims from rural Syria could adapt, belong and eventually prosper and contribute in Canada"
I'm fearful of allowing huge numbers of refuges into another country as the number of social problems could overwhelm the host country. But absolutely with enough support this could work. Not talking financial support, but as this article mentions people taking time to help these people adjust to the new country. I'm surprised in this modern age it happened. Community seems to be uncommon in the age of individualism. It's heart warming to see a counter example.
You've just identified one of the many things that I believe Canadians see as a value that distinguishes us from our friends to the south.
Whether that's fair or not is something else entirely. But I think it's true that, generally speaking, Americans see individualism as one of their defining values, which directly informs a whole host of other derived values (belief in the power of capitalism, distrust of government, etc).
My experience (for what it's worth) is that Canadians, on average, may value those things, but I don't believe they are seen as a defining element of the Canadian identity.
People are people. I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out. In fact our own government put the brakes on the sponsorship program early this year.
I think that's incredibly unfair and I'm frankly astonished you'd interpret their actions that way.
How many people step in when their loved one is failing because they care about them and want to help, and don't want them to be discouraged if things go poorly?
That's exactly the dynamic at play, here. In fact the article goes out of its way to point that out.
It's such a common human experience that I can't help but wonder if you're going out of your way to view their actions in a negative light.
As for the rest, well, these are my own impressions based on my life as a Canadian, and my extensive exposure to American culture... take them with a hefty grain of salt. shrug
I think the sponsors are good people. But I disagree that they're good in some kind of uniquely Canadian way. These are empty-nesters searching for a new family just like these ones right across the border in Buffalo or Bellingham or Burlington. Just look at overseas adoptions in the United States.
> Mr. Nunn, 65 and recently retired, said he was looking for “an indulgence” to mark the event. In Huntsville, an ad on a bulletin board for a motorboat caught his eye. Along with the boat ad, he also took a flyer from a refugee group.
> After reading both on a flight to Florida, Mr. Nunn decided to make the donation rather than purchase the boat — even though it “looked pretty cool,” he said.
> “A fancy trip, a car or boat, kind of diminish and memories fade,” said Mr. Nunn, who had never supported any refugee group. “This refugee effort will have effects that go on for generations. Where is the best value, where is the best return? I threw away the boat ad.”
These are wealthy people looking for the most meaningful and impactful way to spend their time and money. It's not about self-aggrandisation and it's astonishing to me that someone could interpret it as such.
By the way, about:
> I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out.
Well, back in 2015 when the Conservatives were in power in Canada and the Syrian crisis brought fresh horrors every day, it turned out that the Conservative government denied a lot of refugee applications, including that of Aylan Kurdi's family. Canadians said enough is enough and voted in someone who promised to bring in a lot more refugees--which he promptly did. Americans, in contrast, and with the full benefit of seeing the Canadian refugee situation, decided to go the other way. I think it's quite clear what message they sent.
The results are obvious and the effort is a success, even if the ultimate outcome remains in question. The ultimate outcome always remains in question for us all.
I don't know how much you know about Americans, but as a Canadian I don't really see what you see, and it seems a bit condescending.
Personally I think that it's cruel (even if the intentions are good) to play saviour for a few hundred thousand people while an entire nation suffers. We should be investing in their ability to sustain their own society, not placing their failed society's burdens on our own. On top of this, the enormous cultural incompatibility is already breeding flaming resentment in communities with many landed refugees. If we keep this up without thinking about how to do it right, we will get the worst possible outcomes.
Hence use of phrases like "I believe" and "I think" and "My experience (for what it's worth)".
Was that not disclaimer enough for you?
I don't know how much you know about Americans, but as a Canadian I don't really see what you see, and it seems a bit condescending.
Certainly not the intent, and I hope it didn't come across that way.
I do think it's true that Canadians and Americans, as a whole, have an overlapping but different set of... rather than values, let's call them priorities.
If making that claim and observing the differences is "condescending", I don't know what to tell you. Certainly I wasn't attempting to ascribe a judgement to those priorities. I was simply highlighting that I believe they're different, and that the "age of individualism" is not a universal experience.
Of course, you're more than welcome to disagree with that, or disagree with the very concept of a national identity or commonly held set of priorities.
Personally I think that it's cruel to play saviour for a few hundred thousand people while an entire nation suffers. We should be investing in their ability to sustain their own society
Why not both?
not placing their failed society's burdens on our own.
What was that about being condescending?
I was raised Presbyterian. We've always sponsored refugees, fed the hungry, did missionary work, etc. Young me just thought that's what Christians do. We certainly didn't talk or brag about it; that was very gauche.
It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out my congregation was considered liberal.
There are more liberal Christians than not. But we're not vocal or organized. So the fruitcakes have way more influence.
--
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/yazoo/unmarked.html
"He who shouts the loudest
Is the one who's in control
We who never listen
Are the ones who pay the toll"I would not consider the Mormons socially liberal but they do plenty in that vein https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-...
Active, rather than nominal Christians do plenty of that kind of stuff, whether they're conservative or liberal denominations. In the long run the liberal denominations seem unlikely to be relevant. Liberal so-called mainstream Protestant groups have been bleeding members since the 80's at the latest.
This represents much of the church in the USA that is out of the mainline. I don't know who exactly you are calling "fruitcakes" or what you mean by that, but while I've seen some in the rank-and-file be prejudiced, I've also seen leadership speak very strongly in support of caring for refugees.
We've seen this done with Somalian refugees in Minneapolis, for example, with the result that Minneapolis has one of the worst rates of rape in the entire U.S. (They have the 4th highest rate.) [1] This, in fact, is identical to the sorts of problems now facing Europe, and the actual reason for the "growing climate of resentment".
One of the key success factors in this Canadian experiment seems to be one of cultural adjustment. This particular example gives an anecdote of a statement (and acceptance) of values; "we expect you to work and support yourself" / "she lives here, she must know what is right". This tends to be another area where government tax-and-dump fails, as the same officials who want a bureaucracy-only solution also believe that American cultural values, such as they are, are irrelevant at best.
Voicing disagreement of uncontrolled ingest of refugees isn't about being cold-hearted. It is rational concern for our own children and families, and the character of our neighborhoods.
Talk to me about a plan for sponsorship like this one that includes acculturation; I'd vote for a tax increase on my income for that kind of a plan.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
For me, nothing demonstrates that more than Canadian rejection of the "cultural melting pot" of the US in favour of "multiculturalism". I went to school in the age where we still sang God Save the Queen and recited the Lord's Prayer every morning, so it's going a fair ways back, but I remember actually being taught multiculturalism in school (which, as the perversity of this sentence shows, was perhaps an academic exercise). I distinctly remember being told over and over again: We are not American. We do not value a society with a single culture that absorbs other cultures. We value a society of many cultures that live together in harmony.
I think you will see a lot of variation wrt things like individualism in Canadian culture. For example, it is probably a strongly held belief in places like Alberta. But maybe in the small cities in Quebec or on the east coast, you're going to get a lot more responsibility for community. The string that holds it together, though, is the acceptance for a variety of insular cultures.
As other posters have mention, Canada limits immigration. I suspect that it would run into very similar issues to what the Australians have had to deal with in the past 30 years if it didn't. I always find it strange that my adopted home of Japan is probably one of the easiest countries in the world to emigrate to, but because of it's very strong mono-culture, immigrants generally do not stay. In spite of my upbringing, I enjoy living in a mono-culture -- a very embarrassing admission, and I invite all true Canadians to come and spit on me ;-)
I don't want to spit on you (ew), but am interested in meeting some of my fellow Canadians living here in Japan.
If you (or any other Canadians reading this) are in Tokyo and interested in comparing notes over coffee, please drop me a line (email in profile).
Most of the illegal immigrants are travelers who overstay their visas often with little funds or connections. It hasn't caused society to break down or become an unmanageable problem. In fact it is so unnoticeable that most people don't even know the extent of it.
But yet refugees, the people who need help the most, are singled out as being a potential threat to society.
It's why China is so afraid of destabilizing or allowing North Korea to collapse. Refugee waves have caused immense problems pouring out of Venezuela (and into other poor or semi-poor bordering nations completely unable to deal with it). Countries like Jordan, Ethiopia and Lebanon have had vast refugee problems that have overwhelmed them very substantially.
In fact, if you go down the list of countries with the most refugees, they're all countries that are among the least equipped financially to handle it: Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Uganda, Chad.
Turkey has taken in perhaps two million refugees in just the last six years. They have a median income around 1/5th to 1/7th that of Canada or the US. They're completely unable to absorb that many refugees. Lebanon has 200+ refugees per 1,000 citizens currently, the notion that that isn't a problem is absurd, it's the very definition of overwhelmed.
It's anything but ridiculous, it's a not uncommon history of refugee waves spanning thousands of years.
1. Do these people have any knowledge of history? Both Canada and the USA have sustained far, far, far higher rates of immigration than what we're seeing from Syria and prospered mightily because of it. In the 70s Canada was happily letting in a quarter million people a year. (At the time the US was also practically giving away citizenship.) These immigrants, mostly from Asia, contributed enormously to North America's wealth and stability. And this is not a new pattern. We see the same thing over and over. Which makes you wonder -- has there ever been a case where immigrants "overwhelmed" a nation state?
2. To that end, just consider the numbers, even for a moment. We're talking about thousands in a nation of 35 million. And yet somehow these individuals -- poor, isolated, without knowing the language, and isolated from their own families -- pose a security threat.
3. Most importantly at the end of the day basic common sense indicates that immigration is almost an economic positive for the host country. Even if you suspect that you're not getting the best and the brightest from another country what you are getting are individuals often in their prime earning years where some other country has paid to raise them up until this point. The economics here are pretty clear but nobody likes to talk about it. (For example, take a look at Britain. Brexit or no, Britain will need to import millions of laborers over the next decade or, frankly, it will go broke.)
I always bring this up because the language around immigration is so far-fetched, so disconnected from reality and history, but it also never changes, in fact few things are so predictable.
Are there numbers for this compared to border hoppers?
One challenge with immigration is the development of ethnic communities (not bad in and of themselves) which can prevent complete assimilation. This sometimes leads to hard feelings on both sides and makes it hard for immigrants and descendants to truly "belong, prosper or contribute" to society at large. The problem becomes worse when you throw generational poverty in the mix (in cases of immigrants from lower income regions).
As bad as public schools may be they do provide one valuable feature in my opinion. They promote assimilation.
It shouldn't be at the expense of other students though.
If there is an influx of students that aren't proficient in English, and the school is not prepared for this, then other students will suffer.
ESL classes are crucial to proper assimilation. Of course, that increases costs. So, either funding decreases for other students or taxes increase.
I just think if we are going to have large scale immigration this is worth funding somehow as I believe in the value of assimilation.
And to play devil's advocate, how does the overall cost (monetary, time, interruption, etc.) of doing this compare to the cost of "fixing" the situation in their home country? Granted it may not be feasible politically, but inviting in a bunch of refugees is a political minefield, too.
Don't get me wrong there is nothing that hinders poor Muslims from Syria to adapt to and eventually contribute in Canada but you just need a look at many europea countries to see the issues statistically it's quite depressing. (One a positive note though muslim women are some of the best educated in many countries of Europe)
The US as far as I am aware is still the country who have found the best model for integrating people from other cultures into their country.
This is not because the US is a melting pot as many like to claim but rather a tossed salad.
No other country allow people to maintain their own culture while still forcing them to contribute to society if they want to make it.
In the 1980s, during the Lebanese civil war, the US under Reagan blocked Lebanese immigration, which led many of them to Canada. I believe we took in tens of thousands.
As a teenager, ignorant of this, I never understood why we had so many Lebanese restaurants and other businesses (Japanese and Chinese were literally the only other "ethnic" cuisines). I have no idea how their experience was compared to the Syrians in this article, but I know they have thrived, maintained their culture, and contributed greatly to our country.
As other comments have noted, Canada is far from perfect, but I believe as a whole we have embraced pluralism as the path to success as a nation.
It's not about being perfect but about being honest.
So while you might say Canada is great its not as rosy as your charismatic minister might want to paint it.
This is the Canada that I love. And that positivity and love absolutely trickles down through your network of peers. It's about people helping people.
Does anyone else here have stories?
I hope one day that America starts a similar program to make amends for the awful effects of Trump's executive orders on immigrants, americans, and travellers stuck in limbo.
It occurs to me that many Americans are crowdsourcing for healthcare of their citizens, while Canadians are crowdsourcing to welcome new people to their communities. I don't mean to offend, but it seems like moving up maslow's hierarchy to me.
When I got back on facebook I saw that my small town was planning to start a sponsorship group. I went to see how I could help and we formed a committee to bring seven refugee families to our town. I was able to help out by setting up the website, social media and helping with online donations (the group was mostly an older crowd).
To date we've raised over $100k, resettled 5 families and positively changed the lives of everyone involved. All the men are working and half their wives have jobs too. Some of the children are going to school for the first time in their lives and they're learning English quickly. Its incredible to see them playing and laughing after everything they've been through.
I recently moved to another city but I feel so lucky to have been a part of something that had such an impact. And I miss the coffee one of the women used to make :-/
How about you can have all the immigration you want if you sponsor it?
> I think it might reduce anti-immigrant sentiment if Americans were in close contact with the struggles immigrants face.
I think it might reduce the pro-immigrant sentiment if (certain) Americans were in close contact with the struggles immigrants bring.
Pretty much all immigrant visa categories (and certainly the vast majority of actual visas granted) are sponsored, either employer or family, so, sure, just uncap all those categories and be done?
This probably does not apply for refugees, but definitely does for family-based sponsorships.
I can't even begin to tell you all the struggles me and my immigrant friend have brought to all you americans. We sure are an awful bunch.
Oh wait sorry. We are white Canadians who just came here for better tech jobs. Are we still awful or are we some of the "good ones"?
Everything else being equal, the country can probably absorb more educated people with some money than it can uneducated people who are poor.
That'd be great! If you could just please ask Congress to actually let us do that, we can get started right away.
Sorry, was I supposed to say "Nooooo, I'm a lazy liberal NIMBY who demands change but won't contribute"?
Insanity - this would only make it worse.
I'd suggest changing ask to allow, and remove any mention of "civic duty".
The Canadian government didn't go out and ask families to take refugees into their homes -- Canadians applied for permission to take refugees into their homes. And wasn't a trivial process; the vetting of refugee sponsors was probably more detailed than the vetting of the refugees themselves, since the government wanted to make sure that sponsors were going to be able to take care of the refugees and were not going to try to exploit them.
Even with the arduous process for groups to apply to sponsor refugees, the Canadian government had more applicants than their target number of refugees.
I met another newly arrived Syrian through them and that gentleman speaks perfect English and is an IT guy. He came here with several certifications (VMWare, PMP, MCSE, MCSD, etc). Settling down will be a relative walk in the park for him.
If anyone from Toronto is able to guide an IT guy with those certifications, please let me know.
Language takes time to absorb. My advice (from experience and also from teaching English as a foreign language for 5 years) is to keep surrounding them with English language culture. One of the biggest things is to simply include them in activities with other Canadians. Things like barbeques, picnics, beach, skiing, sports activities, bar, restaurant, movies, whatever. Organise events with lots of people and keep introducing them. For the entire year they will probably find it uncomfortable and tiring. They may not say much. They may not understand very much of what is going on, but it is a lifeline.
Also, a few tricks as an immigrant: you need to be super friendly and outgoing. People's natural reaction to seeing strangers is to be suspicious and cautious. I go for walks regularly (like every hour or so -- mainly because I work from home remotely and I need to work out some technical problem in my head). I make a point of smiling and saying hello to everyone I meet. Now I'm pretty fluent in Japanese, but when I first arrived I had virtually no ability to have a conversation. So I practiced simple exchanges about the weather, etc. I would go down the street, find the nearest lonely retired person (lots of them in rural Japan!) and just say, "It's hot today, isn't it". Then I'd let them rattle on and I'd smile. Some people didn't care to talk to me, but quite a few enjoyed the 2-3 minute chat every day. Now it's part of my life and I know virtually all of my neighbours. I am part of the community.
So to sum up: Help them find opportunities to meet other people. They will find themselves completely inadequate to the task, but encourage them. Encourage them to explore and meet people in the community. Have them use whatever little language they have with people on the street. Help them become a part of the community. Language will come over time as long as they keep studying. The study is important, but it seems to also take time just to sink in, so make sure they don't get discouraged if they don't see any progress.
Luckily, they have no choice but be surrounded by English speaking people here in Toronto. The government and the local community is also doing a lot for them in terms of teaching them English, getting them involved in the events/activities.
It's a long-term investment, but I've seen other refugees thrive in Toronto (the locals here would know about the success of the Sri Lankan community).
The swedish response have mostly been plans to place immigrants in more affluent neighbourhoods, which of course have caused NIMBY-outcries. I would be _really_ surprised to see the model mentioned in the article implemented in Sweden, but it would be interesting.
Failure is easy to define, deviation from expected outcomes, suffering, etc.
Success is not the absence of failure. In this case success is a bright future with many options for the children. Success is integrating the children in to the culture of the new host country; this does not require forsaking their heritage, but it may mean becoming more or slightly different than it.
A program that graduates through a series of steps and isn't chronologically based might be a better guide.
Though there are two sets of complications which also need to be examined. Counseling / emotional support, and providing empowerment to the adults.
The question of how to humanely handle the divide of family between a country that has a very low typical standard of living and one which is has both a higher typical standard of living and a higher /cost of survival/ is a difficult one; more difficult than I feel can be tackled even in a long comment. I'm not sure there is an easy answer for it.
An easier answer for empowerment is a good social safety net. Language classes for foreigners (general education), as well as skill assessment and training for possible jobs. These should be part of the standard social safety net of all societies, and lead directly in to targeted job placement (as a replacement for 'welfare' when a worker is not disabled or otherwise unfit).
Every country has its own set of cultural norms and these can be thought of as a protocol. When individuals don't perform on the same protocol, you get a tragedy of the commons effect. This is why I think multicultural societies often breed mistrust[0]. That's not to say that multiculturalism is at fault, only that individuals joining a new society may not be aware of the protocol (i.e. individuals can have more than one protocol).
An open society should embrace helping newcomers speak this new protocol, as it would benefit their society as a whole for all citizens and soon-to-be-citizens to understand what cultural norms unite that society and move it forward. Instead of isolating immigrants in ghettos and enclaves, it seems it would be beneficial to everyone if these new immigrants are sponsored by others citizens to help them assimilate faster rather than left alienated and neglected.
I understand this may not be a natural thing for us, since it seems we have a very tribal instinct. I think teaching integration and embracing/helping immigrants should be something taught at a very early age so its an accepted part of society.
0. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007....