Khan: Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath

2023/07/22 Leave a comment

An activist, linking citizenship to her “white saviour complex” perspective or ideology, largely disconnected from how the vast majority of immigrants feel about the ceremony who consider it a celebration, not just a “mandatory administrative task.”

Her reasoning essentially extends the government’s proposals to its logical conclusive, purely an administrative procedure to provide security and facilitate travel, with no impact on inclusion and sense of belonging. While anecdotes and the imperfect evidence we have suggests the opposite.

On the oath, of course, she has a point.

One of the better reader views in the comment section:

Can a feeling of national belonging be delivered with just a click of a mouse? That’s the question at the heart of the controversy around Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s plan to allow new citizens to tick a box online rather than take a verbal or in-person oath. The aim, the government says, is to reduce the backlog and simplify processing.

But a former senior immigration official has presented a petition to the minister, calling for Ottawa to revert to in-person citizenship ceremonies as the default, arguing that they “provide a unique celebratory moment for new and existing Canadians.” The more than 1,000 signatories worry that one-click citizenship will undermine new Canadians’ sense of belonging, as in-person ceremonies are meant “to enhance the meaning of citizenship as a unifying bond for Canadians.”

I too was excited for my own citizenship ceremony, having seen many colourful and happy pictures of Mounties, members of Parliament and a burst of Canadian flags before my day arrived. The reality, though, was underwhelming: an assembly-line process and a boring speech in a staid government building, followed by an oath to a monarch, before we were rushed out so the next batch of new Canadians could be shepherded in. There were no Mounties or MPs, as is the case with the majority of such ceremonies, making it less celebratory and more administrative.

I felt greater elation when I finally held my passport in my hands. The Ethiopian guard at the passport office gave me a knowing smile as he saw me holding back my tears. I’ll always remember that smile. The ceremony, not so much.

But both approaches – the “one-click” and the in-person – are problematic in the context of today’s immigration regimes. One reason is that these “ceremonies” often feel like expressions of a white-saviour complex, by which all systems in former colonial countries – even ones that have become more diverse, like Canada – are influenced by their white colonizer origins: it is the white-saviour host that decides who gets in, when and how. In a postcolonial world, the assumption within the host society is still that anyone seeking a new life here will be “saved”, but only if it deems it appropriate. This attitude is more about making the host country feel good, than it is about the significant sacrifices that immigrants must make in creating a new life for themselves.

We should celebrate the culmination of what is often a hard journey from permanent residency to citizenship. But when the celebration denies the daily reality of the lives of racialized Canadians and the discrimination they face, an hour-long state-sponsored festivity is hardly a solace in the long run.

The oath is also controversial. Much has been said about how it reaffirms a monarchy that engaged in destructive colonial practices in Canada and around the world. Many Canadian immigrants come from such former colonies. Why should they have to profess loyalty to Britain’s hereditary leaders?

And the notion of belonging that is at the core of citizenship means different things to different people. What those objecting to the one-click approach may not realize is that immigrants have to take the oath to receive our passports. As such, it doesn’t feel like a celebration – it feels like a mandatory administrative task. That the government is suggesting digitizing the oath also confirms this; that approach may help simplify IRCCs bureaucratic complexities, but why even include it, if its value is largely superficial?

Canada’s immigration policies, procedures and practices are hardly perfect; they have faced flack for their modern-day inefficiencies, historical discrimination and the department’s self-admitted racial bias. While Ukrainian refugees have been able to enter Canada quickly, with a fast-track for citizenship, the same cannot be said for Afghans, Syrians or Haitians also fleeing conflict, but made to wait in life-threatening circumstances, or left without any shelter or support on the streets of Canada. In this context, it feels almost impossible to celebrate.

There is actually no need for a ceremony, or even a symbolic oath of citizenship, verbally or through a click; we become citizens once we have cleared the highly cumbersome administrative process. By that point, new Canadians have paid their dues, with interest, to prove we belong in this country, and most of us do it with genuine respect because we see Canada as our home. Celebrating that sacrifice and achievement doesn’t happen in a citizenship ceremony or with an oath. Instead, it would be more worthwhile to focus on a more pragmatic, inclusive and equitable approach to immigration in Canada.

Themrise Khan is an independent policy researcher in global development and migration, and the co-editor of White Saviorism in International Development. Theories, Practices and Lived Experiences.

Source: Khan: Citizenship is about more than just a click, a ceremony or an oath

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Khan: Expanding immigration will not erase racism in Canadian society

2023/02/16 Leave a comment

This is a somewhat silly header. After all, would cutting immigration erase racism?

More substantially, Khan’s commentary lacks historical perspectives, as there has been progress since the elimination of racial preferences in the 1960s. International comparisons with other OECD members provide a more balanced assessment, where Canada is one of the stronger countries in its integration outcomes. Public opinion research, particularly that of immigrant and minority populations, tends to portray that most are reasonably satisfied with their life in Canada, with relative few differences with the non-minority groups.

Of course, Canada far from perfect but to only focus on the shortcomings without acknowledging progress or comparing Canada with other countries reads more like a rant than measured analysis. To use an Australian term, this narrative is that of a “black armband” where everything is negative.

Of for a Canadian term, this is a woke version of Polievre’s “everything is broken.”

That being said, immigration should not just be a numbers game “the more the merrier” as I have and continue to argue:

In its latest immigration plan, the federal government says it hopes to welcome almost 1.5 million new permanent residents between 2023 and 2025, up from approximately one million in the immigration targets for 2020-22. The economic benefits of increased immigration aside, there remains a major elephant in the room that Canada is still not ready to address – racism and discrimination against “visible minorities” – code for non-white immigrants.

While recent surveys claim that public opinion in Canada is more in favour of immigration than ever, recent practices suggest otherwise. Examples include heightened surveillance of select immigrant populations, intense scrutiny of some of their financial resources and discrimination against migrant workers. There have also been incidences of hate crimes against members of immigrant groups. The government must address the issue of racism in immigration policy with a series of broad measures. Otherwise, if left unaddressed, these incidences have the potential to work against Canada’s intentions to continually increase immigration levels and grow its economy.

This is the key failing of the government’s plans on immigration, past and present. Although the latest plan does discuss anti-racism measures much more than previous versions, it is strictly in the context of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s own organizational strategy. Unfortunately, it does not address the real issue – that racism is not just organizational, it is endemic in Canadian society.

A national immigration plan cannot succeed in the long term if it does not acknowledge or address racism and discrimination in society. This is important because eight out of the top 10 source countries for immigrants to Canada, accounting for almost 70 per cent of annual intake, are non-white countries from the Global South.

This disconnect is becoming blatantly obvious in many ways. For instance, it is impossible to view the increase in immigration numbers without looking at the impact of regressive laws and policies such as Bill 96 in Quebec on new immigrants.

Racism affects not only our social connections with immigrants, but also our economic dependence on them. Canada’s approach to immigration has been to view migrants as a source of labour. That approach is bound to create tensions in the long term.

Immigrants may help with Canada’s labour shortages and aging demographics. But if the environment toward them is socially hostile, the chances of them gaining economic ground decrease substantially. In that case, Canada will no longer be a desired destination for people wanting to migrate. Or they will leave because the living conditions are toxic.

This hostility is on display in how Canada refers to immigrants in an official capacity. Immigrants are numerical “targets” to achieve in a given timeframe. International students are deemed the “ideal immigrants,” a common racist stereotype. Canada should not attract students based on how much labour or revenue they can provide in the long term – or because many students themselves use this as an opportunity to gain Canadian permanent residency – but rather how education can enrich their futures. Immigration levels are about “breaking records,” as numbers are increased based on labour shortages rather than the capacity to absorb new people from different parts of the world.

Phrases used by the government to justify rising numbers, such as “filling labour shortages, creating jobs, and driving economic growth,” perpetuate stereotypes of immigrants. The term “visible minority,” or the politically correct “racialized newcomers,” indicates a continued “othering” of immigrants. Semantics hide the racist notion that immigrants are only as useful as their revenue-generating skills. Everything else is their own problem.

This approach to reducing immigrants to labels and economic tools completely ignores the existence and reality of racism as a social and economic hurdle for immigrants. Canada sees new immigrants as a way to fill labour shortages, but the statistics tell a different story. New immigrants are far behind their Canadian-born counterparts in finding employment. Yet, the push to increase immigration levels to record highs continues without anyone talking to employers about immigrants’ inability to find work. This may only increase unemployment rates amongst racialized groups.

Racism also applies to our policies toward refugees and asylum seekers. Recent cases have shown how authorities continue to treat refugees from Afghanistan differently compared with those from Ukraine. If Canada is choosing to discriminate among seriously at-risk populations such as refugees fleeing war and death based on – it can be assumed – their race or religion, this itself proves the point that racism is more than just an organizational issue. It is endemic in our society.

For instance, Canada’s recent appointment of a representative to combat the rise in Islamophobia in this country reflects the federal government’s concern that violence and racism toward racialized communities is becoming normalized. But it ignores longstanding racism against the original inhabitants of this country.

Indigenous communities continue to be oppressed, and the arrival of immigrants, many of them unaware of Canada’s dark colonial past, only adds to Indigenous communities’ distrust of settlers.

Among racialized communities in Canada, Black and Asian Canadians also continue to experience some of the highest levels of discrimination.

If Canada truly wants its millions of new immigrants to be able to contribute to the country, it must address racism and discrimination as broad societal issues. We need a holistic policy approach, not one that is piecemeal.

To do this, the thinking around immigration needs to evolve and specifically address the following in policy and practice:

First, there is a need to change the language around immigration to Canada. This starts with changing how Ottawa frames immigration and immigrants as a labour supply issue. Immigration is a human right and not a numbers game. It must work for both the migrant and the host country.

Second, immigration is never purely economic. Regular immigrants also attempt to escape conflict, discrimination and political instability in their home countries. This is important to remember when assessing admissibility and the potential of each immigrant beyond just their economic capabilities.

Third, anti-racism efforts must be incorporated into the philosophy of services provided to immigrants including settlement services, employment, housing, education and health. This will require different federal, provincial and territorial departments to work in tandem with each other, not in silos.

Last, any immigration plan must also come with a strategy that socially protects the rising number of immigrants rather than just economically compensates them. Addressing racism and race relations must be important elements when designing immigration policy in a country that calls itself multicultural.

Immigration cannot just be about achieving targets and numbers. It is not an assembly line opportunity. Ultimately, we are dealing with individuals and families who also have hopes and expectations of Canada. Undermining these expectations through racial discrimination is the last thing anyone seeking to start a new life in a new country needs.

Source: Expanding immigration will not erase racism in Canadian society

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Themrise Khan: The incoherence of Canada’s refugee policy

2022/01/20 Leave a comment

Overly simplistic in its focus on the “whiteness” of refugee policy given the many restrictions on refugees and discrimination of minorities in non-white countries.

And while one can characterize Afghan interpreters and the like as “helping imperial forces during an (illegal) occupation,” seems a bit divorced from the reality of the Taliban’s rule.

As for her recommendations, fine as far as they go but the challenge is not at the general principles, which most policy makers agree with, but actually implementing them in a real-time basis, where I believe the main failures likely were:

Over the past year the lives of refugees and asylum seekers of the Global South have been put at risk more than ever by potential receiving countries of the Global North. Militarized migrant pushbacks at the Poland-Belarus border. Increasing migrant deaths in the English Channel. Draconian asylum and refugee policies being proposed by the U.K. A United States that continues to be refugee-averse despite a change in government. In essence, we are witnessing the “whiteness” of refugee policy – a shift by countries of the Global North toward using the lives of refugees to wield greater power over the Global South, all the while retaining the false narrative of the white saviour.

Canada’s current refugee policy is nowhere as extreme as those examples, but it is not so distanced from this narrative either. The Afghan refugee crisis in the summer of 2021 was meant to be a moment for Canada to exhibit its good policy, particularly since it played an active part in post-conflict Afghanistan and maintained a presence in the country. Instead, the Canadian response exposed the contradictions in its refugee policy, many of them a long time coming. Whiteness does not only mean discriminating against the “other.” It also means being completely disconnected from the situation outside the Global North. Canada’s response to the Afghan crisis has provided us with several illustrations of this disconnect.

Canada’s response – gaps and discrepancies

From being one of the first northern countries to shutter its embassy when the Taliban took over to when it ended its evacuation mission in the following days, Canada’s disconnect from reality was clear. There were thousands of refugee and asylum cases that had been pending since at least 2014, and the decision to create new refugee programs or expanding existing ones at the 11th hour was a bureaucratic scramble, rather than a well thought out policy response. It stranded people in other countries, which meant Canada had to negotiate special agreements so these countries would temporarily house refugees destined for Canada. The ethics and optics were particularly weak when this involved countries like Pakistan that had closed their borders and were hostile to Afghan refugees.

The situation of Afghan interpreters and fixers who assisted Western forces, including Canada, illustrates the biggest policy disconnect from reality. Their roles were prone to being romanticized in the media, as they perfectly invoke the image of the Western white saviour and the oppressed Afghan working together against a common evil. However, Afghans did not necessarily help Western forces because the West came to save them. They did it primarily for economic survival, as some studies have found, and as a way out of the country for their families in the aftermath of a brutal conflict. This does not negate their right to seek refuge. But suggesting the prospect of asylum in return for helping imperial forces during an (illegal) occupation is a flawed and incoherent premise in the context of refugee policy.

In effect, Western interventionism created multiple tiers of refugees in a system that was never meant to view some as being more deserving than others. In Canada’s case, this threatens the lives of Afghans who directly worked with us by encouraging them with the prospect of asylum and then failing to deliver even before it was too late – all because such cases required a force-fit within a law that recognizes them as just one of many deserving groups.

What the Afghanistan situation most clearly illustrates is the absence of mechanisms within Canada’s refugee policy to respond to complex emergencies on the ground. Canada’s refugee system, like many others, looks to the United NationsHigh Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) referral program. Inthis program the UNHCR refers the applications of refugees officially registered with the organization to third countries thatare offering resettlement opportunities. These third countries, such as Canada, then select who to admit by applying their own criteria to the applications referred to them by the UNHCR. This is how Canada responded to the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015. In the recent Afghan case, however, the system was redundantsince the urgency created by the Taliban takeover was to removeAfghans from within Afghanistan, not from refugee camps elsewhere. Not anticipating this, and also leaving existing Afghan applications stagnating within our refugee system, was perhaps Canada’s worst failing in this crisis. 

Recommendations for better policy and practice

The Afghanistan case blindsided Canada’s refugee response system, but it didn’t have to. We must redesign our refugee policy to be proactive instead of reactive. For this, Canada must:

  • Design better mechanisms to predict and understand conflict-induced displacement

The West obsessively predicts large-scale displacement related to climate change and hunger. But it does little to predict or understand how armed conflict or political power imbalances can force people to flee, especially in the Global South. This includes ignoring voices within the Global South that are better able to judge tension and displacement in their countries. Afghanistan has been a location of conflict for as long as the Taliban have existed. Misjudging this was a tactical error that exposed Canada’s disregard for the views of potential refugees themselves. Refugee policy must invest in a more Southern-led understanding of how conflict manifests over time and can affect people’s lives, including the voices of refugees. It must move away from being simply a paper-pushing exercise.

  • Integrate inter-departmental efforts to respond to refugees and displacement 

Canada was involved in pre- and post-conflict Afghanistan not just militarily, but also via its development programming and humanitarian support. Information gathered by the various departmental channels is vital to developing an integrated response to potential human displacement across government. Better inter-governmental co-ordination would improve refugee response systems, particularly in countries where Canada is diplomatically present.

  • Adopt emergency measures to respond to crises

Canada rather proudly states that it responded to the Afghan crisis by effectively accommodating on-ground challenges. This included bypassing and altering screening and documentation requirements. But this was done only after the realization that regular, peace-time processing measures were not working. Precious time was lost in the process of coming to this realization. Had such measures been in place beforehand, the response would have been immediate. Therefore, it is imperative to acknowledge the distinction between and the need for peace-time and conflict-related refugee processing mechanisms.

A Canadian government official recently commented on Canada’s refusal to bring in relatives of Afghan refugee applicants who were deemed inadmissible. He said: “the hard part of the job has been telling people: ‘I’m sorry, this is the policy.”

This comment in a nutshell sums up Canada’s disconnect from reality as it relates to its refugee response. The Afghan case has demonstrated that whiteness manifests itself not only in racial discrimination but also in policies that are largely oblivious to reality outside our borders. Canada prioritized its bureaucracy and interventions over the risks faced by the Afghan people, and the system ignored the urgency of a country on the brink of collapse. If this is what our refugee system is built around, it is clearly geared toward helping Canada, and not the vulnerable.

Source: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2022/the-incoherence-of-canadas-refugee-policy/

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,