|
|
| Subject: Response to David Suzuki's Comments on Immigration |
|
|
|
In response to David Suzuki’s recent comments on immigration as outlined at http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/11/jason-kenney-slams-david-suzukis-immigration-views-as-toxic-and-irresponsible-after-environmentalist-says-canada-full/
Having grown up in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), I have a very personal connection with the issue of Canadian immigration. I myself am an immigrant; I was born in the United States and moved to the GTA at four years of age. My parents were originally immigrants from Taiwan. I can say that I am a mix of cultures, both Canadian and Taiwanese. I can also proudly say that I certainly don’t feel like an outsider—I feel Canadian, raised here from a young age and very well integrated into the local culture, where multiculturalism has acted as a pillar in my life. I have friends and acquaintances from all over the world who have shared with me their cultures and traditions. Immigration has enriched my life, teaching me the respect and tolerance that others are not always afforded and allowing me to experience cultural life outside of my Taiwanese-Canadian bubble. It has allowed me to live as a global citizen and not, strictly speaking, as just a Canadian.
I am disappointed by David Suzuki’s comments on immigration. Granted, his argument that “Canada is full” is based in environmentalism; he is, after all, our most famous environmentalist. However, his argument disregards the essential element of the human experience. He reduces the stories of hundreds of thousands of landed immigrants into an issue of land use, claiming that “our usable land is reduced” by incoming permanent residents. This is true is a pragmatic sense; our immigrants certainly use land and other resources in order to survive and to support their standard of living. However, Suzuki frames the issue with sensationalism, suggesting that increasing immigrant populations will directly cause shortfalls in our resources. This claim is based on speculation; there are numerous other causes of increased resource use, such as changes in economic activity and increasing standards of living, which are not directly linked with immigrant populations. In reality, resource use levels are caused by a combination of factors; to single out immigrants as the source of increasing resource strain is irresponsible and discourages analysis of the internal and systematic uses of our resources, such as our own consumption and industry practices. Suzuki fails to address these other factors, opting instead to point at the hot button issue of immigration. As an environmentalist, he should know that resource use is multifaceted and that no single group—not even immigrants—is to blame for any excessive consumption.
Suzuki also states that “we pillage countries of the south by depriving them of their future professionals.” It is true that many immigrants are well-educated; in fact, being educated makes entrance to Canada more accessible. It is also true that upon entry to Canada, these individuals become unable to contribute directly to their home economies and communities. However, the sentiment presented by Suzuki suggests that citizens—particularly citizens with high economic potential—have a civic duty to stay in their country despite any reason there may be to move away. This attitude is a dangerous one; mobility is a key factor in ensuring safety, health, and security in individuals and families, especially in the global south. Suzuki himself reaffirms this fact by stating his support of refugee immigration policies; he acknowledges that certain groups need to enter Canada in order to escape unstable or dangerous conditions. This strikes me as hypocritical; on one hand, Suzuki opposes immigration because it causes increased use of Canadian resources and loss of human capital in the global south. On the other hand, he supports incoming refugees despite the fact that those refugees will consume Canadian resources and programs—including our government-funded social programs—and displace professionals and academics from their home countries. Of course, refugees face exceptional circumstances but this does not negate that fact that other immigrants also have valid reasons for leaving their homes. Suzuki manages to both disregard and emphasize the aspect of the human experience in his argument; he essentially states that immigrants are burdens, but if those burdens have suffered enough then they should be allowed to stay. Political instability, poor standards of living, lack of upward mobility, and government corruption in your home country are not valid reasons for immigration—unless some upper-middle-class politician arbitrarily says you have suffered enough based on your paperwork. How is this fair? To arbitrarily say that some peoples’ struggle is more worthy than others is unsubstantiated and unjust to the hundreds of thousands who wish to start new lives as Canadians.
The pursuit of safety, security, and happiness is a universal human trait. We must decide as Canadians whether to be a global facilitator of that pursuit or to hoard our country, our resources, and our culture. David Suzuki had made it clear that he thinks the environmental and social costs of most immigrants outweigh any benefit they have. I prefer to see these people as what they are: people, who have experienced their own set of struggles and, as humans, have as much right to security, equality, and peaceful living as we Canadians do.
My Visa Source is Your Source for Everything Immigration. http://www.myvisasource.com/
[30-07-2014,13:16]
[***.23.160.146]
Michelle L |
|
|
