Introduction
The essay critically evaluates the issue of immigrants in Canada and Australia as written by Valerie Knowles in her book, “Strangers at the Gates” and Gwenda Tavan’s “The Long Slow Death of White Australia”. The two countries (Canada and Australia) in the 1960’s removed restrictions that were aimed at discriminating against Asian immigrants. It is worth noting that despite the similarities in the immigration policies of these countries especially in the choice of immigrants, there was a great difference in how the refugees were treated and perceived. Finally, a clear distinction between a refugee and an asylee is brought to light.
Human beings are always in a state of the movement for instance from one apartment to another, house to house and even from one country to another. People also get out of their country due to various reasons for instance economic, political instability, desire to study abroad despite all these, immigration has been in existence as long as mans’ existence.
According to Houghton (1987), historically, Canada had a higher human population than Australia, in mid 19th century Canada had 2.5 million as Australia had a non-aboriginal of 0.4 million, the gap was narrowed due to Gold Rushes in Australia, widening later as a result of heavy immigration to Canada. Australia’s population increased to 14.9 million people while Canada had a human population of 24.3 million, this is at the beginning of the 1950s. Even though these countries are faced with problems such as unemployment, they attempted to promote their human population growth as well as economic development since the Second World War using immigration (Houghton, 1987). Both used what is known as “point system” that gives room to a combination of different characteristics, having a lot of emphasis on the likely productivity/benefits of the immigrants in the destination countries. The benefit may be economically, politically or socially.
Asian countries such as China, Japan, India among others constituted the highest percentage of immigrants (source countries) to Australia and Canada, 38.0% and 32.1 % respectively (Knowles, 2007). Human migration thus resolves around globalization which encompasses free movement of goods, labor and capital. Immigrants arriving either legally or illegally opt to have rights just like those people in the destination region; it was the realization of this that made these countries change their laws and policies.
Why Canada and Australia remove discriminatory restrictions to Asian immigration
Before the 1960s, Canada and Australia had very strict laws, immigration act and border protection act that aimed at excluding non-Europeans from entering these countries and the later act to deny those who seek asylum especially in Australia. The immigration act gave the government the authority to deport immigrants based on various factors such as insanity, public charge, infirmity, committing crimes of ‘moral turpitude’ among others (Tavan, 2005). It is worth noting that immigration for instance in Canada can be traced as back as 1858, during the gold rush.
Reasons that made these countries remove discriminatory restrictions to Asian immigration.
The rapid pace with which globalization was growing that necessitated the free movement of capital, goods and more importantly human labor has been thought to be the main reason for this action. Labor whether skilled or unskilled helped in making these countries realize growth in the economy, for instance skilled miners from china played an integral role in mining resources especially gold in Australia. Other sectors that required human labor included agriculture, infrastructure and manufacturing industries. As noted by Manne (2003), free movement of labor is essential as it helps address the issue of poverty created by globalization and it could be unthinkable of the consequences of lacking manpower in those countries that needed the same for economic growth and development.
Democracy also played a role as a reason why these countries looked into their laws, policies and regulations that discriminated against Asians from going to them as refugees or to seek asylum. Although people in these countries, especially in Australia, were considered to be culturally, socially and politically homogeneous which was not the case, things were viewed from different angles bringing out the issue of liberal democracy. They realized that coming to terms with the differences rather than transforming it to suit any majority is important and those who are different should be given an opportunity to air their views hence multiculturalism.
Democracy coupled with the realization of multiple human rights also necessitated change in the restrictions. It was noted that new migrants whether arriving illegally or legally opt to have rights similar to those already existing in the country of destination immediately without any further delay. Not allowing this would exclude too many immigrants for the host country to claim it is democratic. The aim is to provide necessary humanitarian aid to those genuine refugees.
Another reason for the action has been deemed as to stabilize declining human population especially in the 1950s and to prevent problems associated with an aging population. As noted earlier, population growth rate in both Canada and Australia drastically declined from the beginning of the 1950s and what was seen as a solution was to do away with the strict restrictions on immigrants especially from Asia. Lately, it has been noted with concern that the removal of the restriction had a hidden agenda- that of political benefit more so when it comes to election, for instance politicians try all their best to woo immigrant voters.
Differences in treatment of immigrants
Refugees migrate from their countries due to civic conflicts, war or differences which arise due to racial discrimination or extremists in religion and most cases they do not wish to go back to their original country (Castles & Alastair, 2000). On the other hand, asylee is those individuals who have fled their countries for the same reason stated in the case of refugees but upon arrival to their destination, they apply for the right to be officially recognized as a refugee. Most of the people who are asylum seekers are genuine refugees.
In Australia, immigrants (refugee/asylee) were generally treated in a very cruel and harsh manner; this was even fueled by those in key leadership positions such as ministers and prime ministers. For instance, those that later boarded Tampa and others were harshly handled and sent back, and denied asylum. Most of them were also detained, in addition there health was not of concern to the government and waited for a very long time for them to be confirmed officially as refugees even after their early application for asylum.
They were also branded names by all and a sundry, for instance, Howard and the immigration minister branded them such names as terrorists, selfish queue jumpers’ criminals just because they are from the east, a region associated with Islam. In addition those that were allowed to acquire asylum and citizenship were not spared, for instance those holding temporal visas were refused to enjoy family reunions and if they dared go and reunite with them, they loss the right to be in Australia. Those with issues to be readdressed concerning their citizenship were not given the courtesy of replies.
In Canada, although immigrants were not properly treated, it was fair compared to what those in Australia went through, for instance, they were allowed to reunite with their families without conditions. The government also helps spouses of Canadians to acquire citizenship and when issues concerning the same are raised, they are responded to as soon as possible. The refugees are not forcefully deported as is the case with Australia.
Conclusion
In 1960s, Australia and Canada removed their strict restriction on immigrants from Asian countries such as Japan, India, China, Korea among others. The reasons that propelled this action is coined in the following factors; globalization (free movement of labor, capital and goods), democracy, human right, stabilizing the countries’ population and for the political mileage, the latter being an issue that emerged recently. Even though these countries had similar laws that tried to remove strict discrimination against Asian immigrants, how they treated them differed. Australia was more harsh and cruel to refugees/asylee as compared to Canada. Although there are problems associated with high numbers of immigrants to these countries, the past inhuman treatment of immigrants was not justifiable as those in power designed such a structure to ensure that specific individuals cling to power dominating the minority.
References
- Castles, S,. & Alastair, D. (2000). Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. New York: Routledge.
- Houghton, S. (1987). Immigration in Canada and Australia. Some Recent Parallel, 4 (1), 4-10
- Knowles, V. (2007). Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
- Manne, R. (2003). The Road to Tampa, in Laksiri Jayasuriya, Jan Gothard and David Walker. Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.
- Tavan, G. (2005). The Long Slow Death of White Australia. Victoria: Scribe Publications.