Welcoming Refugees

Posted November 20, 2015

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

These noble thoughts conclude a sonnet to the “Mother of Exiles”. A plaque bearing the text of the poem is mounted on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, which has welcomed countless millions arriving in the United States at Ellis Island.

Likewise, Pier 21 in Halifax welcomed over one million immigrants between 1928 and 1971, and continues to be where new immigrants (and new Canadian citizens) are celebrated.

Both Canada and the United States owe their rapid growth to a constant stream of immigrants. One might, therefore, anticipate similar responses to the Syrian refugee crisis. In fact, they are almost polar opposites.

All three parties in Canada’s recent election promised to bring refugees here; the only differences were in how many and how fast. The Liberals are now faced with implementing their commitment to bring 25,000 by the end of the year. It is unlikely that a thoughtful evaluation of the logistical challenges informed that promise.

Security is one of those challenges. Worries about security have dramatically increased after the events in Paris. Nevertheless, Canadians continue to support the refugee program. Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, among others, has expressed concern about the timing—but not the ultimate goal.

The United States has taken in fewer than 3,000 Syrian refugees so far. President Obama has made an exceedingly unambitious proposal, to bring in an additional 10,000 after an average screening period of two years. On a per capita basis, that would be like Canada bringing in 1,000.

But the Republicans will have none of it. Leaders in the House and Senate both call for an end to accepting any refugees. More than half of state governors have said that the refugees would not be welcome.

This is allegedly based on security concerns, even though the heavily screened arrivals would pose little risk. If the Republicans were really interested in improving security in the United States, they might take a different approach to gun ownership. Mass shootings (those which involve more than four victims killed or wounded) occur in the US about once per day. Americans are seven times more likely than Canadians to kill each other with guns.

The many candidates for the Republican presidential nomination also oppose Obama’s meagre proposal, while competing with each other on which is the most fervent Christian. They seem to forget the final charge that Christ gave to his disciples: “… I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me… Just as you did it to one of the least of these… you did it to me.”

Perhaps those candidates need to spend more time in Bible study.

Most Canadians, regardless of religious persuasion, support the welcoming of Syrian refugees. Those experienced in refugee settlement understand the challenges in welcoming each family and providing them with social support, food, shelter, schooling, orientation, and access to health care.

How well that is done will be very important to the chances of success of the refugees who arrive. Giving organizations like the Immigrant Settlement Association of Nova Scotia more time to prepare will improve those chances.

If our welcoming process is done badly, it will lead to poor outcomes for the refugees and diminish popular support for welcoming more. That, more than security concerns, is a reason for proceeding more slowly. Two years from now, nobody will care whether they arrived in December or in March. What we—and the refugees—will care about is how successfully they have become part of our communities.

The American response is unworthy of their heritage. But we should not feel smug about our commitment. It is less than half the number of Vietnamese boat people we welcomed. Sweden, with a population of less than ten million, will receive nearly 200,000 refugees this year. Germany will likely end up with close to a million.

Welcoming tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free can make an important contribution to improving our demographic profile, with more kids in schools and young adults to replace our rapidly aging workforce. They can become major contributors to our society, as have so many before them.

There appears to be widespread support for the program in Nova Scotia. Doing it quickly is not as important as doing it well.

Share

Related Articles

We Need More Nova Scotians + Show all articles

Reference Material

Post a Comment

Most Recent Comments

  • Thanks to you and Barry for your comments. I do not think we would be wise to emulate Sweden and Germany and perhaps should have said so. I just wanted to emphasize that we are not the most generous supporter of refugees.

    Bill | November 22, 2015

  • Ihave read the comments of barry h and concur and only wish I had the time to produce such a logical and articulate comment.
    With reference to comments by Mr Black re Sweden I would suggest you read the article “Refugees Sweden Feels The Strain” in Bloomberg Business Week The Year Ahead 2016 at p38 wherein it states “inter alia” that by next year it (Sweden )will end a policy of automatically granting permanent residency to most refugees and outlines the various problems it is causing

    Bill F | November 22, 2015

  • The world has changed. The immigrant/ refugee of today is different from those that came through the immigration process of the 1800’s up to the first half of the 1900’s. The expectations, the beliefs and the values of those wanting to immigrant to a foreign country are dramatically different. Like it or not often those expectations and values are strongly influenced by their past. That becomes a serious problem when the immigrant does not understand the cultural, political and legal systems they want to enter.
    The vast majority of Canadians are open to immigration. However Canadians have concerns and they are correct in expressing them. That is who we really are!!!! When those concerns are expressed it is absolutely wrong to question the values, history, beliefs of Canadians. Unfortunately the government response to those concerns is to raise patriotic, racist, and trust us issues.
    The security issue often gets expressed as a physical security issue. I believe that is often a simplistic expression of the concern. The overall issue is—- the security of our core values and beliefs.
    For instance, we believe in democracy, where our elected officials make our laws. Those laws are supreme, they apply to everyone. There are groups who believe “their God” makes the laws under which they live. That is a very significant difference in core values and beliefs. Belgium is a classic example of where that difference is being lived out. It is projected that within 15 years Belgium will have a majority of its population living in enclaves governed by laws established “by God”. (it is currently 40%). The police do not enter those communities today.
    So when we evaluate immigrants for entry into Canada should we be understanding their core values and beliefs? Who makes their laws, do women have equal rights, does Israel have a right to exist, do all religions exist equally, what is their desire to integrate into Canadian society and so on.
    Is it wrong for Canadians to expect their government ensure those they are admitting to Canada come to share and live within our core values and beliefs. I think not.
    Bill, you mention the generosity of the governments of Germany and Sweden. I am not sure the citizens of those countries would agree that it was generosity as much as stupidity. They had no plan and their numbers have overwhelmed. In fact both countries have implemented stronger border controls. Germany , where Merkel said this can only work if the immigrants disperse throughout Germany and integrate into German society, has seen just the opposite. Enclaves have been quickly established, immigrants who come with serious medical problems have demanded attention and moved into hospitals. Female nurses are insulted and assaulted. In Sweden a major city has become the residence of choice. Their services have been overwhelmed. Unemployment. in that area, is over 50%.
    So when Canadians have been told, by their government, we are bringing 25000 in a very short period of time, and by the way we have no plan as to how we are going to assess the immigrants’ core values, we have no plan to address their medical problems, we have no plan to address their education needs, we have no plan to insure long term integration into Canadian society, we have no idea how we will provide them with employment, should Canadians express doubts and concerns. Of course we should!
    We are and should be a generous country. But to do so without recognizing and addressing the pitfalls and the factors that have lead to failure in countries such as Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden would be a recipe for another failure where nobody wins. These issues cannot be addressed in 8 weeks.
    That is what happens when political promises supersede common sense.
    Someone once said “those who ignore history are bound/ doomed to repeat it”

    Barry H | November 21, 2015

View all comments