Wow. I am beyond impressed. I am from a Muslim country and I have heard more than one person say that we may have Islam on our faces, but Westerners have Islam in their hearts. I can't even imagine the effort the Canadian sponsors put into resettling these families.
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.
I think it may help that Canada is so young. Nobody can pretend to have a claim to this land above anyone else (except for the aboriginals, who we continue to fail.) I'm as Canadian by way of British colonization as it comes and I grew up hearing stories about how my ancestors immigrated here due to tough times at home through the 1800s. We are all immigrants.
I have to be more than a little bit skeptical with that premise.
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).
Former Canadian PM Harper gave an interesting talk earlier this year[1] where he touched on this. In short, Canada is incredibly lucky to be geographically protected from immigration. Its only land neighbour has a comparable quality of life, similar culture, and is vast enough to act as a natural buffer. This means that Canada can implement its immigration policies quite well because the gap between policy and reality is quite low.
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.
The parent was talking about how recently the Canadian (vs pre-Canadian, for lack of a better distinction terminology) population has moved there, which isn't long enough to "feel" like ancestral connections claiming the land as theirs by family roots and birthright. A side effect is that settlements, cities, and expansion are quite new, globally-speaking, so there's not a lot of related deep physical history there either.
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.
That's definitely understood. It's a small percentage of the number however. The US was about 81% white in 1980 and 6.4% hispanic. It's now ~63% white, with the hispanic percentage having more than tripled (~14 million to ~70 million in raw numbers (not implying all is first gen immigration obviously); an increase equal to 160% the entire population of Canada). The extreme bulk of that demographic shift is derived from relatively recent immigration (last 40 years), overwhelmingly from Latin America (the remainder mostly from Asia), and overwhelmingly relatively poor immigrants that would be mostly barred from Canada under their merit system (which is why they have so few hispanics, why they didn't participate in the hispanic population boom the US has seen, and also why that's not going to change any time soon). I'm pro immigration, and it's kind of obnoxious to watch Canadians try to stand on a soapbox while ignoring the facts.
Canada does allow a limited number of refugees to enter, but for the most part our immigration system isn't altruistic. We don't allow people to enter and stay on the basis of their need to live here, but on our need for their skills. We have to have an expectation that immigrants will earn a reasonable income, or they will become a burden on our already strained social services. If they are unskilled (i.e. poor) or their skills are not in demand in Canada, then we can't afford to allow them to stay here in poverty.
20.6% of Canada's population (circa 2011) is foreign born (compared to 12.9% in the US.)[0]
"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.
> Most of Canada's visible minorities come from Asia.
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.
Community seems to be uncommon in the age of individualism.
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.
Canada is a large and diverse country. It also lives with the imposing cultural presence of the US. Growing up in Canada, I never got the impression of a defined Canadian identity except for one thing: We are not Americans.
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 ;-)
Hey. I'm available at my username @ gmail. I really should put that in my profile. I'm living in rural Shizuoka prefecture, and don't make it to Tokyo very often, but I'd be happy to meet up sometime.
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.
The problem in the U.S. is that such a program of government funded private sponsorship is not even discussed. Instead government officials decide they want to dump refugees into cities and surrounding suburbs and "manage" them as an exercise in bureaucracy.
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.
> 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.
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.
I wouldn't draw such a conclusion just from this article. One of the things it highlighted, and that I feel as well as a Canadian, is that to a certain extent the sponsors acted in ways that benefited themselves over the refugees. Like the lady who wouldn't show them how to use the bus, because she's wealthy and doesn't ride buses. Or when the sponsors refused to let the kids' parents work through a simple issue like the school bus not showing up, and instead injected themselves into situations they didn't belong in. That was selfish and self-aggrandizing.
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.
Or when the sponsors refused to let the kids' parents work through a simple issue like the school bus not showing up, and instead injected themselves into situations they didn't belong in. That was selfish and self-aggrandizing.
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
My comment is not intended to portray the sponsors as bad people. I am sure they want to help the refugees succeed in their new life. My intention is to demonstrate that this is not as simple as Canadian collectivism vs. American individualism. A strong dimension of this story is empty-nesters essentially adopting a new family, which is great, but then proceeding to treat them - although with the best intentions - in a somewhat condescending, parochial way, as if the adults of the family aren't grown people who've already survived a thousand times more hardship than the sponsors have ever known in their lives.
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.
My parents are weathy and retired. One of the many "Keeping up with the jonses" money expenditures are symbolic philantropic excersizes with dubious impact. This just seems like another. I am not sure if that goes with or against either of your points but seems relevant nonetheless.
I am curious why you think it's a symbolic exercise with dubious impact? Did you read the article?
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.
Speak for yourself. I don't think hospitality is a broad Canadian value. Individual people in Canada are making the decision to host refugees, they are the kind of people who can do that and want to.
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.
Two years ago I met a lady at downtown disney orlando. She was Canadian and super nice. Sat next to us in a restaurant. We had a wonderful conversation. The lady finished before us and invited me to visit her in Canada. Gave me her addres and phone number. I was amazed. She didn't seem crazy or anything. Just genuinely nice. Her whole family was like that. Made me want to move to Canada. If it just were a little bit warmer...
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.
I don't entirely get your point, so I'm sorry if my comment is not related, but this has happened before.
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.
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.
Ya, a fair point. It is an undue burden on the schools. Now they have to function as school, (in many cases) parent, and language/culture teacher also.
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.
I agree entirely. Assimilation is key to successful large scale immigration. I've always wondered why folks want to move to America to have a "better life", but then fail to learn English. If we're going to have immigrants, we need to be prepared to set them up for success.
It is really hard to take on migrant refugees when they have been robbed of an education and are illiterate and don't know how to manage money. Congratulations to the Canadian families for teaching them all that in 12 months and then the 13th the training wheels come off.
While I agree that this is good to see, it doesn't scale at all. How many people can really afford to pay their own rent and bills, and still have enough left over to pay rent and bills for another family?
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.
I will never understand this argument that refugees will overwhelm the host country. It's ridiculous.
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.
The reason refugees as a concept is particularly singled out, is because they tend to be a wave by definition, which is much more difficult to handle than routine immigration.
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.
It should actually be a source of great shame and humbling to the developed nations of the world that they dump the refugee problem on those countries least-equipped to handle it.
The Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi plan over a hundred years ago specifically calls for overwhelming host countries with refugees to cause the genocides of the peoples of Europe. Seems like this plan is exactly what is happening when I turn on the news every night.
It's not just ridiculous... it demonstrates an almost willful disconnect with reality. Just consider:
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.
A few families and church groups in my Canadian network have adopted syrian families. It has been a truly positive experience to hear all the ways people are offering to help (food, shelter, jobs, transportation, socializing, childcare). And of course the handouts of delicious syrian food in return. On a trip to Halifax I bought some chocolates from a syrian business, and they later ended up on the news for their success.
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.
During the last federal election the refugee crisis was a campaign issue. I gave up social media for a while because the amount of hatred I was seeing towards the refugees was making me feel sick.
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 :-/
Great article. I wonder if something like this could be used in the US to help bridge the partisan divide on immigration. A deal where we reduce immigration but ask people to sponsor as some sort of civic duty. I think it might reduce anti-immigrant sentiment if Americans were in close contact with the struggles immigrants face. I also think a lot of the Trump voterbase feels that their culture is being wiped out by immigrants, a sponsor program may give them some feeling of control back.
A deal where we reduce immigration but ask people to sponsor as some sort of civic duty.
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.
> How about you can have all the immigration you want if you sponsor it?
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?
^Yep. When I was sponsored, the US government basically told us that if we try and claim any public benefits for the next 5 years, they'd come after my sponsor for reimbursement. Sponsor had to show adequate financial resources to sponsor our family.
This probably does not apply for refugees, but definitely does for family-based sponsorships.
Canada does the same thing. I'm a spousal sponsored immigrant and if I were to claim anything as such my partner is actually the one the govnernemnt holds responsible for funding it [from australia, so hardly the same category as a refugee]
OH yeah, love it. Friend comes back from India and is talking about how people are scared because of the recent murders. Constantly hearing about how bad we are for taking American jobs or hurting your salaries. Now knowing if/when the new government will try and screw me. Listening to jerks talk about immigrants in broad terms, then claim without a shred of self-awareness that Trump is only anti-illegal immigrant.
Depends, doesn't it? Your race and nationality aren't the important pieces of information. The cultural similarity is convenient, but not crucial. Similarly, shared language.
Everything else being equal, the country can probably absorb more educated people with some money than it can uneducated people who are poor.
You should include a note in your next tax return for the feds to not use any of your taxes to pay for his road/social security/medicare/anything. I'm sure he'd prefer his roads to come only from blueblooded American taxes.
You use HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it (irrespective of their politics).
HN is for gratifying intellectual curiosity, not for smiting enemies. Enemy-smiting will take over if we let it, so we have to draw a line, and the line we've arrived at is this: occasional political commentary is ok, using the site primarily for that purpose is not.
If you find that HN gratifies your intellectual curiosity about a range of things and you'd like to engage with the community about those things, great! That is the intended use of the site. If you don't find that, or if you're too interested in your causes to care about anything else, then HN is not the internet forum you need. Either way, please adjust your use of this place so we can preserve it for what it's for.
Yet the Trump administration's first action on immigration was to curb legal immigration. And if you bring up H1B on this site or others you will find loads of people who hate the program.
I don't think the claim that the right only wants to curb illegal immigration stands up to scrutiny.
The H1B program should be extremely disliked, it's a fraud.
The radical majority of the program goes to generate corporate welfare for India tech firms. It has been covered extensively on HN, because it's not even remotely coming close to serving the purpose it was set up for (or supposedly set up for).
There are several other ways to operate the system that would fairly distribute H1B visas. The approach we use now, is more than being abused and it's unfair to the millions of people that would like to come to the US from dozens of nations.
>The divide over immigration isn't over immigrants -- but illegal immigrants. Huge difference. The "anti-immigrant" meme is inaccurate. It's "anti-illegal immigrant."
And yet this pic is at the top of the /r/The_Donald right now. Trump voters are afraid that America will become Mexico. But they're also afraid that America will become Syria or Afghanistan or Sweden or Germany.
If you don't see the problems that Islamic fundamentalism is causing in Sweden and Germany, you are willfully ignorant. The way Islam is practiced in most of the world is incompatible with western democracy. It's anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-human rights in general. And each successive generation tends to assimilate LESS rather than more. Yet the left and so-called feminists celebrate this fundamentalist religion for political expediency.
> If you don't see the problems that Islamic fundamentalism is causing in Sweden and Germany, you are willfully ignorant. The way Islam is practiced in most of the world is incompatible with western democracy. It's anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-human rights in general.
There are a few thousand Islamic fundamentalists in all of Germany and the problems they cause are pretty small-scale. The way most Muslims practice their faith here is rather not-in-your-face. E.g. I recently asked a friend of mine whether he wanted to get a hot dog, when he told me he doesn't eat pork. I had no idea. So then we got falafel instead.
I actually didn't even voice my opinion on Islamic fundamentalism. Just refuting that this is only about illegal immigrants, it's not. Your comment is just further proof of that.
I don't sense fear from that cartoon - it seems to me a humorously effective lampoon of the wide-left stances of infantilizing so-called marginalized people, and the strange denial of the fact that some adherents to Islam have openly called for the death of the West while attacking it.
I know that the politically correct thing to do is dismiss any such lampooning as a phobia, but that can't be strictly correct even from a PC POV since ideologies don't get privileged treatment that I know of.
I'm on the board of a Canadian refugee resettlement group. On Vancouver Island. We just received notification that our sponsored family, who fled Mosul, will be arriving this summer. We're well aware of the 13th month issue but we are working to ensure that they will be on their feet by that time. It's a risky endeavor, we have been well trained to prepare for as many eventualities as we can, and I think we are going into it with open eyes. It just seems the right thing to do and i am pleased Canada allows private sponsors. Of yeah, my mom was a refugee from communist Chinaand her parents were refugees from Russia. I figure i gotta pay it forward.
My family has "adopted" a Syrian family and I'm working with them to help them integrate in Canada (Toronto to be exact). The biggest challenge they face is the language barrier (although they are well educated). They barely speak any English. We don't know how long it will take them to be fluent in English, but they surely will not be employable within 1 year.
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.
As an immigrant to a foreign country where I didn't know the language well (Japan), I can verify that it will almost certainly take more than a year. It took me about 3 years to learn how to learn a language and to build up some fluency. I got married in Japan to a woman who didn't speak English well and we subsequently went to England for 2 years. Despite being immersed in English for the entire 2 years (I spoke to her only in English during that period), and despite studying English very hard every day, she was not able to speak well enough to hold a job. We've come back to Japan now and 2 years later, the language has sunk deeply enough that my wife could certainly hold an English language job (even though she barely spoke English for the 2 years since we got back).
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).
Compared to the Swedish model where the government handles the whole process, I find the Canadian one really interesting. Many of the success stories I've read in Swedish media is from more rural places, small villages with ≈ 100 inhabitants, where the community have stepped in and tried to help in the ways they can. And on the other hand, the worst stories are from places where essentially no "native" swedes live and the circle of unemployment and low language skills etc is just perpetuated.
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.
You are not welcome to insult entire groups of people on Hacker News. It violates the guidelines by being seriously uncivil and we ban accounts that post like this.
Keeping all our prejudices aside, it would make logical sense to settle these refugees in Arabic speaking countries. They won't have to struggle with language, customs and other infinite issues that come with being transplanted to a totally alien culture. Being closer to their home countries will also allow them to visit their relatives still in Syria and also for those relatives to visit them.
The vast majority are; something like a third of Lebanon's population is now Syrian refugees, and Turkey (non-Arab, but more similar culture) and Jordan have also absorbed incredible numbers. What the West is getting is just the overflow.
You are not exaggerating. Lebonon had a population of about 5 millions and has already absorbed 2.5 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees. It's incredible and it should put the rest of the world to shame.
An enlightening read. I would like to offer my own definition for success.
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.
This method of immigration sounds a lot like what I imagine a 'halfway house' experience might be like. Only the only thing 'done wrong' was being born in to a bad situation.
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).
It's great that this worked out. The article reminds me of something else that was on HN a while ago, and the discussion pointed out that the problem lies, at least in part, with refugees that aren't willing to integrate with the host culture. In this case, it appears they were willing.
This makes a lot of sense and it should really be more common procedure, regardless of whether immigrants are refugees or those just trying to start a new life in a different country.
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.
I've heard various stories. The claim that the people and rulers of Medina voluntarily submitted to Muhammad seems unbelievable to me, given Islam's history of "coerced" conversions, but what's beyond dispute is that Muhammad became the ruler of Medina.
Whether that was completely voluntary...well, history is written by the victors.
... you can say that about any historical event ever and massage it to fit your narrative.
The commandment for Muslims to fight wasn't sent down till a year or two after the emigration, so they were quite literally not allowed to fight or "subdue" or "coerce" anyone. There's a /tonne/ of evidence that the emigration was peaceful (though there were certainly subgroups opposed to it politically and ideologically). It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history.
Because neither of you cited any material to substantiate your claims, I did some Googling.
As someone with little bias on this topic and no prior knowledge of the "Hijrah" from Mecca to Medina, page 1 of Google for multiple queries returned both versions of the story; a peaceful one and a violent one.
> It is quite literally one of the least contentious pieces of Islamic history.
I referred to the act of emigration and the pact of brotherhood, not the subsequent conflicts with the Jews. There was no "conquest" of Medina. Conquest implies an invading army subjugating a native population, which didn't happen because there was no army - only refugees.
I mean, they were invited to come over and the Prophet(S) was invited to take a role of the head of state. Generally speaking most (not all) of the native Arab population (excluding the Jews) was happy about it. So in that sense, yes they were "subjugated" in that their were subject to him as head of state. It's not unlike a modern election where even if you're not happy about the result of the election, you're still subject to rules made by the new government.
Do we have any histories not written by Muslims confirming that they were invited or that Muhammad was voluntarily given absolute and hereditary power?
As for being like a modern election, well, Trump hasn't exiled any Democrats yet.
a) It wasn't hereditary.
b) A bunch of ragtag Meccans came to Medina with a destitute Prophet, where there were two well armed and well established Arab tribes and three Jewish tribes. No armed conflict took place, because there is no reasonable way to assert that that would not be recorded, by both Jewish and Muslim sources.
a) I guess whether it was hereditary depends on whether you're Sunni or Shia. Either way, it certainly was heritable, lasting beyond Muhammad's death, to be inherited by either his cousin or his wife's father.
b) Muhammad united the two Arab tribes and conquered Medina, expelling or killing the three Jewish tribes. Is that your understanding?
A) I'm sure he planned that when he escaped from Mecca on a camel.
B) yes kind of like how the Russians went communist and then invaded Afghanistan.
/a whole lot happened in between/
---
Anyway, I'm done arguing. You obviously won't be convinced and neither will I, and I have better things to do than argue with a person on the internet. Good luck with whatever it is that you do and no hard feelings.
The Hijrah was in 622, Mohammad died in 632. Ten years to solidify power in Medina and Mecca isn't really comparable to the seventy years and a world war between the Russian Revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan.
I'm sorry you didn't find this worth your time. I've learned a few things from this discussion, and refreshed my memory of a few others, so I found it worthwhile. Thanks for the discussion.
Yeah, Khaybar and the massacre of the Jewish tribes of Qurayza, Qaynuqa and Nadir never happened. Medina/Yathrib was all hunky dory kumbaya tabarakallah.
Nadir and Qaynuqa were evicted , not massacred. Qurayza was killed after they betrayed the Muslims in the middle of a seige that Nadir (which had resettled in Khaybar) helped instigate. Khaybar was attacked as a result of that same seige, and after the Muslim victory, they were allowed to keep to their lands in exchange for tribute.
So yeah, not a kumbaya story, but it's sure better than your one-line, sarcastic comment.
That sounds like something we would instantly ban an account for if you mean what you're saying. Since intent is hard to read, I'll assume you don't, but please don't post anything like this to HN again. We don't need religious, nationalist, or racial flamewars here, among the many kinds of flamewars we don't need.
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.