Multiculturalism is a defining characteristic of the Canadian people, where persons of diverse backgrounds and origins live in harmony. However, discord persists over the impact of various legislation and practices in the integration of immigrants as well as identifiable religious minorities. Multiculturalism, for instance, finds opposition on the premises that it promotes balkanization and isolation of ethnic groups. Proponents argue that such policy encourages herding of ethnic groups, where differences between groups are amplified as opposed to their common identity as Canadians (Kymlicka Par1). It is imperative for a multiethnic nation like Canada to institute mechanisms that facilitate feelings of equality and belonging for all citizens, including immigrants and refugees. Despite facing some challenges, Canada remains one of the most integrated countries, with representation by immigrants from around the world. Integration relates to all aspects of living, including integration to the labor market, political participation as well as social integration. While Canada’s efforts at integration are commendable, there persists challenges and opposition, with Kymlicka highlighting progress made under multiculturalism, while Bissoondath dissects Canadian multiculturalism exposing some of its major shortcomings.
Debate on the impact of multicultural policy on the Canadian demographics rages on since its adoption in 1971. Will Kymlicka attempt to illuminate the beneficial effect of this legislation in the integration of immigrants and other minority groups. The author defends Canada’s multiculturalism holding that immigrants and religious minorities are better off in canada as compared to other western democracies. In support, the author submits of the mutual empathy and acceptance among native-born Canadians and immigrants. Canadians consider ethnic diversity as a key component to their Canadian identity. Additionally, Canadians are likely to consider immigration as beneficial and not likely to consider immigrants as prone to crime as compared to other western democracies. In return immigrants to Canada relish the freedom, democracy and most of all its multiculturalism (Kymlicka Par 4). On political integration, the author submits of Canada’s progress, where the federal parliament consists of 13% foreign-born Canadians. While challenges persist on the political integration of migrant Canadians, the country outperfoms all the western democracies in this respect, where political parties are likely to run minority candidates, with no evidence of discrimination by voters for such candidates (Kymlicka Par 8). The reciprocal nature of integration emerges again, where the immigrants are willing to participate in the democracy of their adoptive nation, while in turn, the electrolate is prepared to be represented by immigrants. I find the policy helpful, especially on instilling reciprocity, where acceptance of ethnic diversity is impossible without acknowledging of its existence, as proposed by Bissondath. Socially, there is a near absence of migrant or minority ghettos in Canada, where immigrants choose to live in neighborhoods with fellow co-ethnics. Areas of ethnic residential concentration, however, lack common identifiers such as impoverishment, social isolation or impaired mobility as is the case with US and European ghettos.
In contrast to Kymlicka, Neil Bissondath holds strong opposition to the multicultural inclination of Canada, especially as reinforced by multicultural policy. While Kymlicka advocates for a gradual integration, Bissondath is of the oppinion that immigrants also deserve to feel as complete citizens to their adopted country. Further, the author’s tone towards Toronto’s recalibration by migrant activity is dissaproving, where he holds that multiculturalism has been quietly disastrous for the country as well as immigrants (Bissoondath Par 2). His argument revolves around culture, where he maintains that initiators of the policy ignored that culture could not be relocated and that voluntary immigrants would hold on to their cultures of origin(Bissoondath par 5). Celebrating ethnic diversity serves to reinforce stereotypes, the author noting that highlighting differences leads to individuals being defined by those difference. Accepting ethnic defination is, according to Bissondath, accepting a subtle marginalization. Further, cultural interaction within the Canadian society comes across as trivilizing them, especially the established cultures thousands of years old. The mosaic tile demography, thus, has succeeded in creating mental ghettos for communities (Bissoondath Par 7).
While Kymlicka defends the multiculturalism legislation in Canada, Bissoondath pursues its shortcomings, and how its existence serves as a disservice to immigrants. Nonetheless, and despite their seemingly divergent takes on the issue, both authors are proponents of harmonious integration of all ethnic groups into the fabric of society. Kymlicka is appreciative of the effect that multicultural policy has played in positioning Canada as a preferential destination for immigrants, as compared to other western democracies. The ability of immigrants and minorities to achieve their potential as people is greatly attributable to the official government stance of Canada being a multicultural country. However, Bissoondath illustrates the detrimental effect of the legislation due to its reinforcement on stereotyping behavior. He submits that immigrants choose to come to Canada, and it is the individual on whether to follow their native culture or adopt existing culture.
While the effects of multicultural legislation are evident on Canadian immigrants, facilitating easier integration into society, there still remains limitations. Multiculturalism involves accepting and adopting tolerance and acceptantance to multiple ethnicities and cultures sharing a country. Bissoondath, an immigrant from Latin-America, may lack a full appreciation of the effect of multicultural legislation, nonetheless, he is right in holding that all residents deserve the right to be Canadians, without hyphenation. While the multicultural policy has helped lay the groundwork for integration, it is imperative that immigrants eventually feel at home in their adopted country, simply as Canadians without other ethnic and cultural identifiers.
Works Cited
Bissoondath, Neil. "No Place Like Home." New Internationalist Magazine 5 september 1998: Text. Web. <https://newint.org/features/1998/09/05/multiculturalism/>.
Kymlicka, Will. The Current State of Multiculturalism in Canada and Research Themes on Canadian Multiculturalism 2008–2010. Government Report. Toronto: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2010. PDF document.
