Strict language rules for immigrants proposed


dumpthemonarchy
#1
It's about time, speaking the language nowadays has to be a basic requirement of citizenship. It is key for employment and assimilation. Not to mention saving us billions in taxes. I want immigrants to join the mainstream, we are encouraging them not to, and what do we get? The Toronto 18, who wanted to bomb parliament, the stock exchange and cut off the heads of politicians.



Strict language rules for immigrants proposed


Strict language rules for immigrants proposed



Newcomers could be forced to prove English or French proficiency before taking citizenship test



By Thandi Fletcher, Postmedia News October 15, 2011


The Harper government wants to force immigrants to prove their proficiency in English or French before being able to write an exam and be considered for Canadian citizenship.

Currently, immigrants ages 18 to 54 must only prove their language proficiency by taking a multiple-choice written test on citizenship questions, which federal officials believe "does not adequately assess [for the] listening and speaking skills" needed for effective integration into Canadian society.

The proposed changes, which would affect about 134,000 applicants a year, would require immigrants to prove they can speak English or French when they submit their first application for citizenship, which immigration officials believe will streamline processing of the applications.

They would have to submit results of an English or French proficiency test approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, proof of secondary or post-secondary education in French or English, or proof of completion of a language-training course such as the federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada.

"The ability to communicate effectively in either French or English is key to the success of new citizens in Canada," said Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in a statement on Friday. "This change will encourage applicants to ensure that they can speak English or French when they apply for citizenship, thereby improving the integrity and effectiveness of the citizenship program for Canada and for new Canadians alike."

"It is expected that the majority of citizenship applicants would already have evidence that they could submit with their application," a government notice of the proposal stated. "Therefore, the requirement is not anticipated to pose a burden on the majority of applicants."

Max Berger, a Toronto immigration lawyer, said the changes would pose "an unnecessary burden" on economic immigrants who have already demonstrated their English or French proficiency in order to receive permanent residency.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. "There's no burning need for these changes."
Those who would be affected by the new rules are refugees, citizens who sponsor a husband or wife and the spouses of economic immigrants, he said.

In the past, the citizenship test has "always been considered good enough to assess one's ability in one of the two official languages," he said. "If you've ever looked at the citizenship guide, you have to have a pretty good knowledge of English or French to get through and understand it. . The citizenship test has proven the test of time."

David Matas, a Winnipegbased immigration lawyer, said the new rules make application processing easier for the federal government, but make the application more cumbersome for immigrants.

"I think government should be user-friendly," he said. "Putting people through hoops for bureaucratic efficiency, I don't think that's user-friendly."

Studies provided by Kenney's office show the reasoning behind the proposed changes and suggest that Canadian citizens who speak English or French earn higher incomes than those who do not speak either of the national languages.
Donald Galloway, a law professor at the University of Victoria, said the proposal shows the Harper government puts the economy above the humanitarian needs of its residents.

"The government is saying the economic benefits are much more valuable than family unification benefits," said Galloway.

"I think that's a very limited vision of what immigration success is about."

If the proposed changes are made into regulations, Galloway said the extra cost and hassle of taking a language proficiency test could deter qualified applicants from coming to Canada.

"People will make that costbenefit analysis," he said.

"If we really are interested in getting the brightest and the best to come here rather than to another country, our immigration process is going to deter people who speak perfect English or French from applying."


 
damngrumpy
#2
Wow the last time we talked about assimilation it was nearly a hundred years ago.
Back then we put the native kids in residential schools and abused them. We took
time to make sure we destroyed their culture, forbid them to speak their language,
and as a pass time they were sexually abused as well. Are you sure we want to go
through that episode again? Why do people have to be forcefully assimilated?
It usually works out that in three generations it happens anyway, so why do we want
to enforce dictatorial rules to defend democracy?
I find that more of the immigrants are learning English and paying big money to do so.
How many of us born in Canada folks are learning French, or French speaking people
learning English. Hm maybe we could all at least think about practicing what we
preach. The other aspect of this is, why not learn as many languages as possible,
that way we can learn more about the foundations our country was built on.
There are some interesting things about this country, the Chinese for example have
been here for over a century, the Sikhs have been here for more than a hundred
years, the Japanese have been here for over a hundred years. Lets see, people
from Eastern Europe have been here for a hundred years. The British and French
have been here for a few hundred years.
All this for what? The native Indian population has been here for at least ten thousand
years so which of the native tongues do we speak? We are all immigrants including
the Aboriginals so the length of time we have been here means nothing and no one
should be privileged. Our country is richer for having a varied background we have had
scientific and cultural progress come from many parts of the world and our collective
experience is what has made this a great country.
I like the idea that people can come from every where and teach each other how we can
live in peace if we try.
This is why I don't think immigrants are the problem or that they are a burden, I think people
who want to prevent the tide from coming in are the problem, for such ideas are as old
as saying women should not have the right to vote.
Like it or not, Canada is a Multicultural nation, if they can't get work in the mainstream they
will create their own jobs. What is the mainstream in this country anyway, I suggest
being a citizen, no matter what language you speak is part of the mainstream because all
citizens are equal before the law, do you have a problem with human rights and equality
or were you just musing about the future?
 
Omicron
#3
Actually, I get it. Ever done business with Taiwanese? The issue was not vocabulary. It was grammar.

Now here is what is guaranteed to freak everyone out. Vocabulary is just words, but grammar is the logic, and the greatest grammar logistician was Noam Chomsky. He showed how to write an algorithm to deconstruct any grammar and re-construct it into another, but because he told the war mongers of Vietnam that they wouldn't know how to suck a dick if it was pushed in... the rest is history.
 
In Between Man
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

Newcomers could be forced to prove English or French proficiency before taking citizenship test

They should have to prove their proficiency in English only. Forget the French.
 
petros
+3
#5
Screw language. Anyone can learn it in a few months. The program that floats my boat is getting the immigrant kids into hockey so they have a commonality with the other kids and it brings parents together to cheer on their kids.
 
wulfie68
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Screw language. Anyone can learn it in a few months. The program that floats my boat is getting the immigrant kids into hockey so they have a commonality with the other kids and it brings parents together to cheer on their kids.

This actually makes more sense to me than forcing the language issue, which solves itself on its own. If you want to build communities, you build bridges starting on common ground and the competitive nature of sports can help: the antagonist isn't the people with the accent, its the guy in the wrong coloured jersey... and the next game or season that guy might be on your team.
Last edited by wulfie68; Oct 17th, 2011 at 07:55 AM..
 
towtruck17
#7
of course it would make sense to speak english or french in this country after all they are the official languages of this country. What some shyster lawyers opinion is about how user freindly it is is of no consequence. Enough of the lawyers and their bull****, change the law and make them responsible for the people they are flooding into this country who neither have the language skills or any measurable work skills beyond minimum wage earners. These people drain the resourses want to make cultural and legal legislative changes as well as negatively effect our comunities with crime and terror not to mention their trash. Enough already with these third world dregs what ever happended to the quality immigrants that brought skills and their own financial support that sought to merge their culture with ours and enrich Canada no more of this riff raff need apply or come to this country. The governmement says we have unemployment then why are there people on welfare or ei put them to work before you bring more people here to go on some sort of taxpayer funded holiday.
 
Machjo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

It's about time, speaking the language nowadays has to be a basic requirement of citizenship. It is key for employment and assimilation. Not to mention saving us billions in taxes. I want immigrants to join the mainstream, we are encouraging them not to, and what do we get? The Toronto 18, who wanted to bomb parliament, the stock exchange and cut off the heads of politicians.



Strict language rules for immigrants proposed


Strict language rules for immigrants proposed



Newcomers could be forced to prove English or French proficiency before taking citizenship test



By Thandi Fletcher, Postmedia News October 15, 2011



The Harper government wants to force immigrants to prove their proficiency in English or French before being able to write an exam and be considered for Canadian citizenship.

Currently, immigrants ages 18 to 54 must only prove their language proficiency by taking a multiple-choice written test on citizenship questions, which federal officials believe "does not adequately assess [for the] listening and speaking skills" needed for effective integration into Canadian society.

The proposed changes, which would affect about 134,000 applicants a year, would require immigrants to prove they can speak English or French when they submit their first application for citizenship, which immigration officials believe will streamline processing of the applications.

They would have to submit results of an English or French proficiency test approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, proof of secondary or post-secondary education in French or English, or proof of completion of a language-training course such as the federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada.

"The ability to communicate effectively in either French or English is key to the success of new citizens in Canada," said Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in a statement on Friday. "This change will encourage applicants to ensure that they can speak English or French when they apply for citizenship, thereby improving the integrity and effectiveness of the citizenship program for Canada and for new Canadians alike."

"It is expected that the majority of citizenship applicants would already have evidence that they could submit with their application," a government notice of the proposal stated. "Therefore, the requirement is not anticipated to pose a burden on the majority of applicants."

Max Berger, a Toronto immigration lawyer, said the changes would pose "an unnecessary burden" on economic immigrants who have already demonstrated their English or French proficiency in order to receive permanent residency.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. "There's no burning need for these changes."
Those who would be affected by the new rules are refugees, citizens who sponsor a husband or wife and the spouses of economic immigrants, he said.

In the past, the citizenship test has "always been considered good enough to assess one's ability in one of the two official languages," he said. "If you've ever looked at the citizenship guide, you have to have a pretty good knowledge of English or French to get through and understand it. . The citizenship test has proven the test of time."

David Matas, a Winnipegbased immigration lawyer, said the new rules make application processing easier for the federal government, but make the application more cumbersome for immigrants.

"I think government should be user-friendly," he said. "Putting people through hoops for bureaucratic efficiency, I don't think that's user-friendly."

Studies provided by Kenney's office show the reasoning behind the proposed changes and suggest that Canadian citizens who speak English or French earn higher incomes than those who do not speak either of the national languages.
Donald Galloway, a law professor at the University of Victoria, said the proposal shows the Harper government puts the economy above the humanitarian needs of its residents.

"The government is saying the economic benefits are much more valuable than family unification benefits," said Galloway.

"I think that's a very limited vision of what immigration success is about."

If the proposed changes are made into regulations, Galloway said the extra cost and hassle of taking a language proficiency test could deter qualified applicants from coming to Canada.

"People will make that costbenefit analysis," he said.

"If we really are interested in getting the brightest and the best to come here rather than to another country, our immigration process is going to deter people who speak perfect English or French from applying."




I do agree with this in principle. Sure the langauge in the citizenship guide is quite difficult, and the grammar average, maybe slightly above agerage in its level of difficulty, so in theory simply taking the citizenship test in either language should suffice as long as it required the writing of complete sentences and not just multiple choice. However, I have met citizens from abroad who still could not speak English, so clearly something's not working there, and for that reason, yet I agree with this new policy in principle. It's not about assimilation, but integration. Inasmuch as we dont' want to assimilate anyone, we must still ensure they integrate.
 
CDNBear
+6
#9  Top Rated Post
Makes sense.

I think there is a real problem, when people are using interpreters in PAL and hunting courses. Or MNR CO's have to wait hours, for assistance from the OPP, to lay charges, because someone claims they don't speak English or French.

If you want a license of any kind in Canada, being proficient in either official language, and able to easily and accurately communicate with instructors/examiners, and law enforcement, should be mandatory.
Last edited by CDNBear; Oct 17th, 2011 at 05:33 PM..
 
TenPenny
+3
#10
I agree, if you don't speak English or French, you should be allowed to visit, but not immigrate.
 
VanIsle
+4
#11
They have to learn the language. Both for their sake and ours. What if they need help? What if they just need a restroom? Far too many reasons to learn the language. Sports are great and they will join them in due time if they want to. Language is key.
 
Machjo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I do agree with this in principle. Sure the langauge in the citizenship guide is quite difficult, and the grammar average, maybe slightly above agerage in its level of difficulty, so in theory simply taking the citizenship test in either language should suffice as long as it required the writing of complete sentences and not just multiple choice. However, I have met citizens from abroad who still could not speak English, so clearly something's not working there, and for that reason, yet I agree with this new policy in principle. It's not about assimilation, but integration. Inasmuch as we dont' want to assimilate anyone, we must still ensure they integrate.

Sorry, I take my original post back, or at least to a degree. I would make exception for religious refugees and others of the sort at risk of persecution, such as iranian baha'is for instance, for obvious humanitarian reasons. And I do hope an exception is being made for them. Also, tehre should be no exception for spouces the reason being this would merely encourage marriages of convenience and thus encourage more marriage fraud and thus more Canadian victims.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I agree, if you don't speak English or French, you should be allowed to visit, but not immigrate.

Even visitors. I remember of one anecdotal case in Switzerland where a foreign tourist driving a car hit a pedestrian tourist at night with no witnesses but another tourist who was walking with the other pedestrian who got hit. When paramedics and police arrived, no one could communicate if the one who gotten hit had any medical condition paramedics might need to be aware of, or to explain to police what happened, etc.

I could see some kind of language-passport scheme, whereby once you pass a language test, you can get some kind of 5-year tourist card allowing you to enter the country with a passport but with no need of visas. But seeing that you never know what can happen, it would be reasonable to even require tourists to know the local language, unless they're under a certain age or are medically incapable of learning the language and such other such cases.

And on the topic of sports, I enjoy certain sports, but mostly such as rock climbing, hiking, etc. but competitive sports not as much. We're not going to start selecting people based on sports interests I hope.
 
karrie
+1
#13
I don't see the issue. The language barrier hurts no one but the initial immigrant and it usually sorts itself out within one generation. No fuss no muss.
 
TenPenny
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Even visitors.

Using that idea would rule out an awful lot of tourism; I loved China, and would go back again, but I don't speak Chinese.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I don't see the issue. The language barrier hurts no one but the initial immigrant and it usually sorts itself out within one generation. No fuss no muss.

Ummm, not quite. We spend a lot of money on social agencies helping immigrants learn the language.
 
petros
#15
Let's just let the CPR handle immigration. It worked great last time.
 
Cliffy
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Let's just let the CPR handle immigration. It worked great last time.

Does that mean we'd get a bunch of British orphans to use as slave labour?
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Does that mean we'd get a bunch of British orphans to use as slave labour?

For sure. But they will make us try to change our ways and make us watch soccer and shave our heads. Immigrants do that ya know.
 
Cliffy
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

For sure. But they will make us try to change our ways and make us watch soccer and shave our heads. Immigrants do that ya know.

Man! Soccer riots, sharia law: when is it going to end?
 
Machjo
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Ummm, not quite. We spend a lot of money on social agencies helping immigrants learn the language.

You're correct:

Evaluation of the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program

Money that could go towards teaching English and French to the 15% of the population of Nunavut who speak neither well, and who were born and raised in Canada.
 
TenPenny
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

For sure. But they will make us try to change our ways and make us watch soccer and shave our heads. Immigrants do that ya know.

Soccer would be okay, but don't force us to watch cricket.
 
petros
#21
Catholic Churches teach English (or French) for free.
 
TenPenny
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Catholic Churches teach English (or French) for free.

I'm sure there's a catch; there always is.
 
petros
#23
None. Going beyond is of your own free will and accord.
 
VanIsle
#24
It's silly to suggest that visitors to any country have to know the language. Residents on the other hand need to learn the language and while we cannot make them use it, they need to know it. It's also just as silly to suggest they don't need to know it if they are a resident of this country. I am fed up with listening to people around me speaking to each other in a foreign language and speaking so loud that no one else can talk and we are all too polite to tell them to either speak english or quiet down. For some reason, residents of this country seem to think that they need to yell into their cell phones which is also a major irritant. Generally speaking we are a more soft spoken society. There are some foreign languages where people sound like they are in a major argument rather than a conversation and then they break out in a big laugh. Seems totally rude to me when two people are deep in a conversation in a foreign language and then you have to interrupt them to ask a question and both people will answer in perfect english. This is a mostly english speaking country so why not use the language spoken by most? One generation of non english speaking people can take a long time to end. Lots of older folks simply refuse to learn the language but they sure can learn how to count money fast enough. Why not take it a step further. Believe what you will but - I still believe we have a right to expect new comers to this country to learn to speak english and they should have a basic understanding of it before arrival.
Our son has a student from Mexico. His school (in Mexico) teaches English as a second language so even though he is only 14, he already speaks the language quite well. There are words that he doesn't understand and he says words we don't understand but we get around it and we do so because he has more than a basic understanding of the main language of this country. They have had students from Germany, Brazil, and Mexico. None have arrived without knowing some english and the whole reason for being here is to learn the language. Along the way we get to learn a few words from their country and we learn about their culture. It's fun for everyone.
 
TenPenny
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by VanIsle View Post

I am fed up with listening to people around me speaking to each other in a foreign language and speaking so loud that no one else can talk and we are all too polite to tell them to either speak english or quiet down.

So, are you arguing that people in this country shouldn't be allowed to speak a foreign language at all?

Kinda like beating the natives for speaking their own language.
 
karrie
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post


Ummm, not quite. We spend a lot of money on social agencies helping immigrants learn the language.

yeah, we spend a small portion of tax money to create another tax payer... big whoop. It pays itself back when we crank them out into the job market.
 
TenPenny
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

yeah, we spend a small portion of tax money to create another tax payer... big whoop. It pays itself back when we crank them out into the job market.

I was just pointing out that when you said we don't spend any money on it, we actually do.
 
karrie
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

I was just pointing out that when you said we don't spend any money on it, we actually do.

I never said we don't spend money on it. I said it hurts no one but the immigrant to not know English.

And no, incase anyone's wondering, having our noses out of joint because we can't eavesrop on a conversation doesn't count as hurting anyone.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I never said we don't spend money on it. I said it hurts no one but the immigrant to not know English.

And no, incase anyone's wondering, having our noses out of joint because we can't eavesrop on a conversation doesn't count as hurting anyone.

Years ago, when working on the pipeline in Petrolia On., I met a guy from Quebec who after being in Ontario only a few months was pretty good in english....when I asked him how he learned so fast, he said....when I first came to ontario the only words I knew was bacon and eggs....After two weeks of that...I learned to read the menu......
 
VanIsle
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

So, are you arguing that people in this country shouldn't be allowed to speak a foreign language at all?

Kinda like beating the natives for speaking their own language.

Of course not. That in itself is just plain silly. I'm saying that it is MY belief that new comers to this country should be required to learn the language and should speak it in the applicable places. To me those places would be in public where most of the people surrounding them are speaking english. I was out at a private house party years ago. Two of the women in the room could speak english but chose to speak french. It made many of us quite uncomfortable. Because all of our spouses had the same job in common, we were all invited to the same party. I'm sure they would have found it uncomfortable if everyone around was speaking french and two people who could speak french chose to speak only in english and they could not understand english. In those circumstances, many of us felt that the only reason they would talk to each other in french was to say things they knew most of us did not understand. Their husbands understood of course because they were all from Quebec. I'm sure there is a comfort level in speaking the language of one's origin but they will not feel a comfort level in their new country if they do not learn the language. All through this I've said they need to learn it. I never said they should not speak it. I think good manners dictates that they speak it when in a public place - particularly where the sound of their language kind of takes over the room. Some asian people really talk loud. I had an asian man yell at me one night for not knowing the name of some produce in HIS language. He was yelling at me "You no learn". I was born and raised in this country and I don't need to know what it's called in his language. It was my opinion that he should be glad it was there for him to buy (unless he preferred to grow his own which probably doesn't grow in this country or he probably would grow his own). The inference that it was my duty to learn his language to talk to him in my country was beyond ludicrous.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I never said we don't spend money on it. I said it hurts no one but the immigrant to not know English.

And no, incase anyone's wondering, having our noses out of joint because we can't eavesrop on a conversation doesn't count as hurting anyone.

Eavesdropping on a conversation has absolutely nothing to do with it. When people are talking really loud in any language, it's just darned annoying. I don't want to hear their conversation period.
 

Similar Threads

18
Changes Proposed to Question Period
by FiveParadox | May 6th, 2010
8
Proposed Green Tax In Alberta
by missile | Feb 10th, 2005