The Conservatives’ Anti-Asian Immigration Policies

(Gabriel Yiu) Once the Conservatives formed a majority government with all the power to wield, they have been bringing in a lot of changes. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has been making so many changes and announcements that even the most attentive critics have difficulty in following them.

The Conservatives are using this tactic of rapid changes because they don’t want the public to see what they’re up to.

Whether it’s to raise the language requirement, to cancel 300,000 applications (most of which were from China and India), or to raise the requirement of sponsoring parent immigration ($40,000 per head plus life-time sponsorship), all the new measures have an adverse effect on Asian immigrants.

The Conservatives not only want to hinder future immigration from Asia, they even block the immigration of those who applied years ago.

But what has upset me most is their level 4 language requirement for citizenship. The new measure requires immigrants who have been accepted, who fulfilled their immigration obligations, who have settled down and lived in Canada, and who have been contributing to the country, to achieve a minimum standard of CLB 4 (Canada Language Benchmark level 4) in an English or French test (which includes listening, speaking, reading and writing) before being accepted as citizen.

Canada is indeed an English and French speaking country. Immigrants’ command of one or both of the official languages would help them in their lives and in achieving prosperity.

At the same time, Canada is a democratic country where voting is a most sacred fundamental right of being a citizen. Looking into Canada's history, we learn that Asian immigrants had painful experiences of being discriminated against. It takes them generations of struggling and fighting to gain equality.

A century ago, Chinese were discriminated against by the government and by society. They were exploited in work, their children’s education and development were retarded, and they did not have the right to vote, not to mention to run for public office. History has proven that governmental discrimination based on reasons like race and language is a mistake. It is unjust and it’s against Canadian values. Yet, today’s Conservative government is reviving that spirit in their new immigration policies.

The Conservatives' new requirement will strip away the voting right of a great many immigrants who having been living in Canada for years, paying taxes and contributing to their new homeland.

I agree that immigrants should learn English, but the government should employ encouragement rather than measures that oppress immigrants who have been an asset to the country.

Our history in the past century has shown that, even with a language barrier, Asian immigrants and their offspring have contributed immensely to Canada.

In today's world, when Asia is a dominant player in the global economy, Asian immigrants with their language capacity, cultures and relations should be recognized as Canada’s assets instead of being viewed as a burden.

In the past decades, Canada’s generosity and forgiving attitude have won the world's respect and the heart of immigrants. Canada’s immigration policy has been set according to our needs and interests. We have welcomed and embraced people from different parts of the world. We have taken immigrants according to criteria like skill, investment and family connection.

In the investor and family immigration classes, even when applicants have a language barrier, the government would still accept their application if they’re able to fulfill their obligations to invest or reunite with their family here in Canada.

But now, the Conservative government wants the investor and family classes of immigrants to pass a language exam at level 4 before they’re allowed to become citizens. I have to say that this measure is outdated, unjust and would turn immigrants with a language barrier into “second class" citizens.

In the US, the so-called “big melting pot” country, they don’t have this kind of language requirement for their new citizens. In Hong Kong, the place I was born and brought up in, the government doesn’t require their Caucasian or East Indian residents to speak and read Chinese before they can cast their vote.

Of course, Chinese are not the only immigrant group with a language barrier. Asian immigrants from India, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and immigrants from some central American, Latin American or eastern European countries could face the same hurdle.

Canada's history has clearly illustrated that in the last century, a language barrier did not hinder immigrants and their offspring from contributing to society. So why, in the age of global village, should Canada take the old path, applying discriminatory policies to restrict immigrants from becoming citizens and exercising their democratic right?

To those who are brought up in an English-speaking society, they might think that learning English or French is not that difficult. But we should understand that different people have different language learning capacities. There’re people who can command several languages and there’re those who can’t command or write well even in their own language, let alone a second one.

I have been listening to Japanese songs and watching Japanese films and TV series since high school; but after more than thirty years, I don’t think I’ve reached the minimum level of Japanese language proficiency.

Several years ago, I traveled to Japan. What shocked me was that even in Tokyo’s top international hotels, their lobby receptionist couldn’t speak English well. What I’m saying is, we can’t see others only from our angle. Learning English or French may not be a problem for you, but it can be a problem for other people.

Vancouver is praised for having the best Chinese food in the world, but have you thought about the real contributors to this fame, those who worked hard in the kitchen? How many could pass a language exam at level 4 in all four skills? I can tell you that most, if not all, will not be able to pass and I believe this phenomenon is not unique to Chinese restaurants. If the chefs were denied their citizenship, that would be a heavy blow to the Canadian culinary industry.

In the South Asian community, I’ve seen many young women who married here and who can’t speak English. I was told many hard-working farm workers have a language barrier too.

The above are just a few examples. If the new citizenship language requirement is implemented, these hard-working immigrants who have been contributing to their family and to our society would become “second class" citizens. The fact is, new immigrants usually work longer than those who’re locally born, they have to look after their children and family, and they have to adapt to the new culture and environment. They can function effectively within their community and to a certain extent outside it. Stripping them of their citizenship and voting right because of their weakness in English is not going to improve their language capacity.

The Prime Minister Should Apologize for the Komagata Maru Incident in Parliament

The centennial of the Titanic has received wide coverage in the Canadian media. Yet, another ship, the Komagata Maru, which had left a stain in Canadian history, has received almost no mainstream media coverage. The occasion was the opening of the world’s first museum commemorating the journey of the ship, two years before the centennial of its fateful voyage.

RMS Titanic collided with an iceberg and sank in the Atlantic Ocean a century ago. The accident cost the lives of over 1500 passengers, mostly white people.

Two years later, in 1914, a Japanese steamship, the Kamagata Maru, sailed from India, via Hong Kong, Shanghai, Yokohama to Vancouver. The ship carried 376 passengers from Punjab, India. Like other passengers traveling to Canada at that time, those were migrants seeking a new life in the New World.

It is unfortunate that even though the Asian Indian migrants were British subjects (India was under British occupation), they did not receive the same treatment as migrants from Europe. The Indian migrants were simply forbidden to land. In order to block Indian migration to Canada, the Conservative government prohibited the immigration of persons who did not “come from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey.”

The exclusion law was specifically targeted at Indians because Europe and the Canadian east coast were close enough for a ship to sail and reach its destination without stopping, whereas a voyage from India to the west coast had to stop over at some port due to the greater distance. Since Indian migrants were British subjects, the Canadian government could not apply the head tax to them.

Coincidentally, the Chinese Head Tax and the exclusion acts against the Indian migrants were legislated by the then Conservative governments. These exclusion measures were brought in at a time when Canada was accepting a great many immigrants (over 400,000 in 1913 alone – a figure that remains unsurpassed to this day), almost all of whom from Europe.

After two months of holdup while the ship was forbidden to disembark, the Komagata Maru returned to India. When it arrived in Calcutta, there was a conflict with the British military and passengers were killed, wounded or imprisoned.

Like the Chinese Head Tax and the persecution of Japanese-Canadians in the Second World War, the Komagata Maru incident has left a stain of injustice in Canada’s history. The Chinese-, the Japanese- and the Indo- Canadians have been fighting generation after generation for the redressing of the historical wrongs inflicted on them and their ancestors.

It is interesting to note that whether it be the redress of the internment of Japanese-Canadians, the apology to the Chinese community or the apology to the aboriginal community, such redresses took place under the Conservative government.

Nevertheless, there are visible differences in terms of how the Conservatives dealt with the three different communities. Conservative prime ministers have apologized to the Japanese, Chinese and aboriginal community in parliament, whereas as prime minister, Stephen Harper decided to deliver the apology to Indo-Canadians in August 2008 in a community event in Surrey.

When the prime minister and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, were asked whether the government would apologize in parliament, Kenney bluntly said, “The apology has been given and it won't be repeated”.

As the minister who has been responsible for redressing the Chinese Head Tax, Kenney’s words are quite incredible and inconceivable. If the Conservative government could apologize to Japanese-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians and the aboriginals in parliament for past wrongs, why would they refuse to apologize for the Komagata Maru incident in parliament?

There is a huge difference in meaning between the prime minister apologizing in an ethnic community event with few or no mainstream media reporters present, and his apologizing in parliament. The former is an address to the participants of a community event, whereas the latter is an address to the country and would be duly recorded into history.

Since the exclusion acts against the Indians were legislated in parliament, so if today’s government has the courage to admit past wrongs, the proper way is to have the matter settled in parliament.

Former Prime Minister Paul Martin attempted to redress the Chinese Head Tax in 2005 but failed because the Liberals initially refused to apologize in parliament. Announced prior to the federal election, Martin’s so-called “historic” redress did not include an apology. During the election campaign, Martin felt the heat of the Chinese community and apologized in a Chinese-language radio show. His half-hearted act was not well-received; thus, Martin vowed a week later that after the election he would apologize to the Chinese community in parliament. As things turned out, it was Prime Minister Harper who made the official apology in Ottawa five months after the election.

Perhaps next time when the media meet with the prime minister or minister Kenney, they could ask them specifically why it is not necessary to apologize in parliament. The public could also ask their Conservative MP the same question.

I believe that with solidarity among the ethnic groups, there is hope that a dignified apology could be issued before the centennial of the Komagata Maru incident.

Located at the Khalsa Diwan Society’s Sikh temple (8000 Ross Street, Vancouver), the Komagata Maru museum is now open to the public, admission free.