Politics of immigration: final Exam 1

Politics of Immigration Final Exam

Thomas Weber

Bloomsburg University
Politics of immigration: final Exam 2

Question 1: Benefits of Immigration

The extensive study and research of immigration scholars since the 1970s has left the

academic community divided on the costs and benefits of immigration. This short essay will

briefly outline three advantages of immigration, contrasting with three disadvantages of

immigration. Once we have our supporting evidence established, I will make an assessment if a

policy stance of increased immigration flows from developing nations to developed countries is a

good policy response.

First, we will outline the benefits of immigration through two perspectives: economic and

social benefits. These benefits will have an emphasis on migration from developing countries to

developed countries. To build and understand these benefits and costs from the most recent

scholarly evidence, we will draw on readings from immigration scholars Bloeraad, Castles, Haas,

and Miller. We will then use the same framework to examine the costs of immigration, with a

focus on how immigration effects the developing nations.

Immigration to developed nations brings a handful of economic benefits. Foremost, we

can draw on the conclusions made in The Age of Migration. The first economic benefit stems

from the movement of labor; developing nations receive low-skill labor in exchange for hosting

immigrants. This is important to understand in the context of low birth rates in Western nations;

as noted by Castles et al., migration has been the main driver of population of population

growth in many European countries (2014, pg. 122). One can observe that the lack of birth rates

would mean in the future, there would need to be immigration to supplement the workforce. In

the past, Europe supplemented their declining workforce with guest and colonial workers.

Castles et al. write that in Britain between 1946-1959 Irish workers provided manual labor for

industry and construction, and many brought their families and settled permanently (2014, pg.
Politics of immigration: final Exam 3

108). These immigrants help supplement the home nations workforce and are willing to do jobs

rather not preferred by citizens. Several conclusions can draw be to argue that there are economic

benefits of immigration, but they mostly revolve around the necessity of laborers. Next, as our

second benefit, we will examine how remittances are a positive benefit of immigration.

Immigration to nations is primarily motivated by economic concerns from the

immigrants. Often in need of money, a relatable experience for college students, they brace

themselves for new countries where they are foreigners in search of a better future for their

children. However, to help family who chose to stay, remittances are sent back to their home

countries. Castles et al write how some migrants, such as Nigerians in Britain, have set up

hometown associations, through which migrants club together to send money home for

community improvements (2014, pg. 76). This economic development of their home nations

helps stimulate their economies, educate youth and build a brighter future in their home nations.

This transfer of money is argued by Castles et al as an investment in their home communities,

primarily with purchasing better homes, pushing their home families which add[s] to the safety

and quality of life and social status of families (2014, pg. 76). Remittances, while often

criticized by the right, are key to developing the home nations of immigrants. The category of

remittances is a benefit that can fit in both the economic and social categories; we can now move

onto a social benefit of immigrant to finish our analysis.

Immigration to host nations often brings cultural clash, but also brings social benefits to

the host nation. Our third key social benefit from immigration is the brain gain when migrants

move from developing countries to developed nations. While a major issue for developing

nations is the loss of high-skilled workers, whereas developed nations gain from high-skill

immigration. Brain gain is defined by Castles et al as occurring when the prospect of moving
Politics of immigration: final Exam 4

abroad motivates those staying behind to continue education, through which the net effect of

emigration on education levels may actually be positive (2014, pg. 77). What this means for

developing nations is that instead of receiving low-skill and low-education migrants, high-

education and high-skill laborers are imported. This would not only mean that their socialization

and cultural integration into their host countries could be easier, but that they also bring more

diversity into their respective academic fields. Their foreign perspective and education also helps

normalize their respective identities as legitimate, helping their perception in mainstream society.

While our next section will cover the social ills of immigration, we conclude brain gain to

western nations is a societal positive of immigration. However, this brain gain is not coupled

with a loss for the developing world.

While we do experience these economic and social benefits from immigration, there are

some downsides for the sending & receiving nations. Economically, their origin nations face the

loss of high skill, educated labor (known as brain drain). In receiving countries, low-skill

laborers face economic inequality, poor housing conditions and discrimination in the workforce.

Socially, immigrants face discrimination and alienation in their newfound homes. First

examining the economic downsides of immigration, we will discuss two different categories:

brain drain for developing nations and the labor rights/working conditions of immigrants. Then,

we will move onto to the socially harmful aspects of immigration focusing on discrimination in

their new homes.

In the earlier section brain gain was briefly covered as a benefit of immigration, but it has

an acidic effect on home nations who lose their most educated and skilled citizens. On an

individual level, it makes sense for these people to immigrate to places where they will make

more money and have a higher probability of upward social mobility & security. They
Politics of immigration: final Exam 5

supplement their home countries with remittances, but on a national level, they are hurt by brain

drain. If all a nations doctors were to move, it would leave a nation without medical expertise

and reliant on foreign doctors. Dr. Murad Alazzany writes in Yemen Times that Yemens brain

drain is a real concern that directly impacts the countrys deteriorating health and education

services over 130 of Sanaa Universitys professors have applied for sabbatical leave abroad

(2014). Developing nations lose their most highly valuable people in society, creating a cyclical

effect where highly-educated are inclined to immigrate and the country is left without the people

for a country to flourish. Economically speaking, brain drain is academic drought for developing

countries. Another economic disadvantage of immigration for migrants in their host nations, low-

skill and high-skill laborer face long working hours.

When we picture an American immigrant, tropes of hard, back-breaking agricultural

work and economic hardship come to mind as the American myth is known, through hard work

and perseverance, you will eventually find success and prosperity. The working conditions and

labor rights for immigrants, particularly immigrants from Central America and Mexico, is not

rosy. Irregular migrants are often initially smuggled, Castles et al writing how a US government

report revealed how the percentage of foreigners smuggled increased from 9 per cent in 1997

to 14 per cent in 1999 (2014, pg. 237). The sometimes involuntary trafficking is a result of this

need for labor. In addition, Castles et al also writes how Hispanic advocacy groups alleged that

employer sanctions would increase employment discrimination of minorities (2014, pg. 216).

The compounding of these two factors can reveal the dark, illegal and immoral aspect of

immigration today. Not only facing intense discrimination in the workplace, immigrants are also

falsely stereotyped and characterized by society as a whole. Subject to racist violence and
Politics of immigration: final Exam 6

microaggressions, minorities in America must deal with a lower social status that white

Americans.

We can draw on the aforementioned benefits and downsides to immigration to draw some

conclusions advocate whether or not a policy response of increased immigration flows from

developing to developed nations is appropriate. In my opinion, we need to first weigh the

benefits of immigration, including fulfilling labor needs, remittances home and brain gain. These

benefits need to be compared with these immigrants facing questionable working conditions,

illegal trafficking or smuggling and their home nations facing brain drain. Taking all of these into

account, I would say we need to find a delicate balance in order to mitigate to costs and

maximize the benefits. There is no single correct or black and white answer; people will always

be migratory. Not open borders nor bigly (as our president would say), beautiful, walls are the

correct policy choice.

First, we need to ensure that if laborers migrate, they are treated with the same respect

that citizens receive. While we rely on an American myth of perseverance, immigrants do not

deserve unfair workplace wages and employer discrimination; irregular immigrants do not

deserve to live in a legal limbo and under fear of deportation. In the end, they receive marginal

benefits from migration, like remittances home and a better chance at upward social mobility. A

policy response that would advocate for increased immigration flows would need to accurately

account for the factors new arrivals face, which is not the case today. Concepts of brain

gain/brain drain can be understood as individual gain versus collective gain high-skill

immigrants should be able to immigrate, but they still face disrespect and racism. While they

may be able to secure careers, they leave their home nation without the necessary high-skill labor

in order to develop working institutions key for transition to a developed nation. I argue that a
Politics of immigration: final Exam 7

mixed policy approach is needed in order to make sure both parties benefit in immigration, with

a much needed emphasis on working to fix workplace discrimination and the illegal migration

industry are absolutely necessary. We also need to work with developing nations to ensure they

are working against the migration industry. Concluding, I would not advocate for or against a

policy response that would lead to increased immigration flows. Like water on the beach, there

will always be waves of immigration and it is increasingly difficult to prevent. We need to do our

best to make sure both sending and receiving nations maximize their benefits with importance on

the livelihood of immigrants themselves.

Question 2

Every region of the world approaches immigration with a different policy response. We

will examine three regions, including the U.S., Europe and the Gulf nations. Comparing these

regions push-pull factors, demographic shifts and a policy challenge in each, we can draw on

where they are similar and differ.

First, we will examine these how these different pieces of immigration theory can be

applied in Europe. Push-pull factors is defined by Castles et al as models [that] identify

economic, environmental, and demographic factors which are assumed tosh people out of places

of origin and pull them into destination places (2014, pg. 28). Some of the push factors we can

observe in contemporary immigration to Europe include the humanitarian crisis and war in Syria

and Libya, forcing refugees to leave their home countries in search of safety. Secondary to

violence is the immigrants need for economic stability, where impoverished immigrants from

Sub-Saharan Africa to Eastern Europe move in a direction towards Northern and Western

Europe.
Politics of immigration: final Exam 8

These migratory patterns from the developing world to the developed world will

inevitably lead to a shift in demographics. Europe is a non-traditional host countries for

immigrants, unlike North and South America. However, a similarity to be found is that Europe

now has immigrant population shares on par with the USA (Castles et al, 2014). This

demographic shift will mean that social friction will occur between the new arrivals and the

home nation population; it will also mean that government policies will most likely (we will see

after French elections) follow a German/Canadian programs of multiculturalism. The former will

likely affect the perception of migrants and the pull factors that attract immigrants abroad. If you

are going to face discrimination and even racist violence, you might be dissuaded to migrate. On

the flip side, policies that call for more social programs and aid to newly arrived migrants might

persuade them to immigrate, even if temporary.

One major policy issue for Europe is the rise of the reactionary, occasionally violent,

alt or far-right. Their opposition to immigration means that integration, incorporation or

assimilation of immigrants/refugees will be more difficult than before. Rely on scapegoating and

selective news coverage, these groups feel the bastion of Western civilization is falling to a

global, borderless dystopia. From Farage to Le Pen to Orbn, this anti-immigrant political

movement is only in incubation. This policy challenge to appease the far-right or to see them

voted into power seems like an insurmountable policy challenge. Europe faces this reactionary

right-wing revival with similarities and differences. As with every policy, people win and lose.

One must address their concerns in order to bring policy discussion of immigration from disease-

metaphors and saber-rattling back to reality.

America, by tradition seen as a nation of immigrants, faces a variety of push-pull factor

and demographic shifts that will affect future immigration. Castle et al affirm this belief, writing
Politics of immigration: final Exam 9

how the USA remains the worlds number one destination for migrants, and over half of them

come from Latin America (2014, pg. 133). While we may not be #1 in voter turnout or public

education, Americans can still hold pride in the fact we are a destination for settlers worldwide.

We can identify two major push and pull factors in America. The first identifiable push

factor is the lack of economic stability and social mobility in Central America and Mexico. Many

immigrants, primarily irregular immigrants, find they will still make more money in America for

low-skill labor jobs than in their home countries. The economic gain from immigration to

America is not marginal but life-changing for the children of irregular immigrants in the United

States, who receive all the benefits of citizenship.

Another major push factor is the political freedom (or lack thereof) experienced by Latin

American and Mexican immigrants in their home nations. Castles et al write how the

industrializing Latin American nations of the 1970s were crushed or opposed by U.S. backed

military regimes, which generally opened the door to neoliberal approaches abased on

privatization, deregulation and export orientation. (2014, pg. 126). These military regimes, such

as the Salvadorian government, committed grave atrocities with paramilitary death squads

against left-wing groups. Understandably, these political refugees were pushed to leave their

home nations in search of refuge in America.

One of the identifiable pull factors influencing American immigration in the past was our

Bracero Program. Originating in 1950 to fill labor needs, Castles et al write how the United

States organized 4.5 million young men to work as temporary migrants in US agriculture and

railway track maintenance (2014, pg. 130). While only a fraction, this pull factor then led later

to the legalization and recognition of nearly 87,000 Mexicans (Castles et al., pg. 218). Policies

like this turned the guest-workers into settlers. Economic motivations in turn integrate these
Politics of immigration: final Exam 10

people into the fabric of the nation. Opportunity is a primary pull factor for immigrants coming

to The United States.

Furthermore, an identifiable pull factor for high-skill immigrants to America is our HB-1

visa program. Recruitment and skilled labor is particularly needed in the technology industry,

where companies attract Chinese and Indian graduates. Still facing discrimination and unfair

working hours, the opportunity for them in America can be seen as an enticing pull factor.

A key policy challenge for American immigration is the prevention of deaths from

irregular immigrants. Castles et al state how estimates suggest that over the period 1994-2009,

between 4,000 and 6,000 migrants died trying to cross the US-Mexico Border (Castles et al,

2014). The combination of scorching sun, lack of water and unreliable smugglers result in the

death of these irregular migrants. While President Donald Trump advocated for a border wall,

American lawmakers need to adequately address these deaths and work to prevent them. Next,

we will move onto the Arab Gulf region.

Migration to the Arab Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE) is usually perceived as

some of the harshest immigration policies in the world. Low-skill laborers from the developing

world, such as the Philippines, Nepal and Bangladesh, move to the gulf region economic reasons

and face brutal working conditions. However, their immigration was not the first to the region.

Initially, the Gulf nations chose to employ fellow Arabs. We will identify major push-pull

factors, some demographic shifts and a policy challenge.

One major pull factor that drew immigrants in the past was the oil boom of the 1970s.

Castles et al write how The sudden rise in the price of oil generated financial resources to

undertake major construction and infrastructure projects. (2014, pg. 179). This required the

hiring of foreign workers, primarily from surrounding Arab nations like Egypt and Yemen. The
Politics of immigration: final Exam 11

need for labor was a major pull factor for arriving immigrants. However, a push factor we can

identify is the political activism of these Arab groups. While the Middle East was a political

battlefield for the cold war, the Saudi Arabian government saw these groups, particularly

Palestinians, as subversive. (Castles et al., pg. 179). This ended up leading to those Arab

immigrants to emigrate out of the country in favor of South Asian immigrants.

A demographic change we can see in the Gulf region is the dichotomy between workers

and employers. In many Gulf countries, the immigrants outnumber the citizens. For example,

Castles et al write how in the UAE has a population of over 3 million, of whom at least 70% are

migrants (2014, pg. 180). This demographic change and stark contrast between citizenry and

non-citizens means that these nations might be induced to curb immigration, or turn these non-

citizens into permanent settlers. The Arab Gulf countries are working towards more humane

systems, but inequality and an almost master-servant relationship still exists.

One policy challenge that the Gulf region is the reality of permanent settlement. These

governments actively work against permanent settlement of their immigrants be it Arab or

South Asian. We can perhaps draw on this to understand why the Gulf nations have chosen to

only take in a handful of refugees from the Syrian Civil war and other regional conflicts. The

Gulf nations will have to focus in the future on providing aid and resources to their immigrant

populations, or leave them in poverty.

Generally, these regions face different specific policy challenges but the same

overarching issues regarding immigration. For example, stated above is the fact that America and

Europe now host around the same number of minorities. This means that both countries ought to

have more policies for integrating and assimilating their new arrivals. However, policies diverge

with de facto American lasses-fair integration opposed to European style language and cultural
Politics of immigration: final Exam 12

classes for their immigrants. The Gulf region does not focus on integration or assimilation, but

rather prefers to bring in passive or politically inactive immigrants solely for labor. The policy

challenges faced in all three regions all relate back to the safety and living conditions of

immigrants. While Europe has to deal with far-right, anti-immigrant agitators, The United States

has to deal with a dangerous border that has left thousands dead. The Gulf region has to focus on

improving the conditions of their immigrants, primarily so they arent dying building stadiums in

extreme heat. The similarities between all nations is the globalized facet of immigration, where

people have over-the-border social capital to move to new communities. By knowing people in

these respective regions, transnational migration is less of a huge leap. It is easier to connect with

family thousands of miles away, and to return back home.

Question 3:

For almost every nation in the world, emigration and immigration top their policy

agendas. This essay will examine how these nations look outwards at the governments of Canada

and Luxembourg for immigration policies. We will first examine two lessons learned from

polices in Luxembourg, then move onto Canadas policies.

Luxembourg is a tiny European state, but their immigration policies can provide us some

insight on how to get integration correct. Using Fetzers Luxembourg as an Immigration Success

Story as our primary resource, we can first examine the conditions that allowed for their relative

ease with immigration. This will give context to why their immigration polices work. First and

foremost, Fetzer writes how they have enjoyed one of the highest if not the absolutely highest

per capita income in the world (Fetzer, pg. 109). Luxembourg is an economic paradise

compared to other nations in the world. This context will illuminate to us a factor why their

immigration system works well.

Politics of immigration: final Exam 13

A first major lesson that we can draw from Fetzers analysis of Luxembourg immigration

policies draws on the need for a strong economy. Regions that have weakened economies or

large native-populations in lower-socioeconomic standing that have to rival migrants inevitably

lead to xenophobic rhetoric and polices (Fetzer, pg. 110). Instead of looking at immigration as a

necessity for the economy, they see it as invaders coming to steal jobs away from the native

population. One lesson we can draw is that in order to counter xenophobic responses from the

host countries population, a strong (even socialist) economy is beneficial. Foreign nations should

look towards strengthen their economies before large-scale immigration.

A second lesson we can draw from Luxembourgs immigration polices is the need for

political consensus on the immigration issue. The author writes how political elites must

maintain a pro-immigration consensus and above all else not allow immigration to become an

electoral issue dividing the political parties (Fetzer, pg. 110). Building on the foundation of the

first lesson, a strong economy, the issue must not be politicized enough to make it the single

issue voters vote on. We can apply this theory to the British referendum and the current election

in France the primary dividing factor is immigration policy, above everything else. While

aspects of the economy and other policy fields are important, immigration policy is politicized

the most. If a government was able to keep discussion between political elites instead of anti-

establishment rightwing parties, it would drastically reduce friction between host nationals and

immigrations.

Canada is often cited as the best model for working multicultural immigration policies.

First, a major lesson that can be drawn from Canada is their permanent immigration policy,

which aims to admit the equivalent of 1 per cent of its total population of about 34 million each

year. (Castles et al, pg. 134). With the fracking boom, bountiful coastlines and bustling cities,
Politics of immigration: final Exam 14

Canadians view immigration as a necessity for growth and expansion instead of an issue. The

permanent policy of immigration means that Canada remains a prime destination for migrants

worldwide. If nations with dwindling populations (like present-day Japan) they could supplement

their native populations with immigrants.

Canada also features multicultural, integration policies unlike other hands-off countries.

Bloemrand writes how Canadas political tradition focuses on how immigrants and their

descendants can retain their unique ethnic heritage and simultaneously contribute to the

Canadian whole (Bloemrand, pg. 139). The ability to have dual identities in Canada contributes

to the inclusion of immigrants into their mosaic. This symbolic response to the American

melting-pot shows to immigrants that the government is in full support of immigration and is

attentive to their issues and rights.

In brief, both Europe and the United States can draw many lessons from immigration

policies of Luxembourg and Canada. The first lessons learned from Luxembourg is the need to

balance the needs of immigrants with the needs of the native population. Depoliticizing

immigration and a strong economy deflect and minimize the chance of support for anti-

immigrant far right parties. From Canada, we see how a government approach to immigration as

integral to the country and the economy produces a positive connotation to immigrants. By

constructing immigrants as needed for the economy, alongside multicultural polices, produces a

welcoming environment for newly-arrived immigrants while balancing the concerns of native

citizens.

Question 4

Different countries have produced a wide array of integration pathways for their

immigrant communities. Some states prefer to leave immigrant groups on their own, while some
Politics of immigration: final Exam 15

opt for government-backed integration programs, while a few call for separation. All of these

practices work in different ways to integrate migrants into their new homes. For three

representative countries, this essay will first examine the United States hands-off integration

model, then Frances assimilationist integration policy, then lastly Canadas official Multicultural

integration model. Then we will discuss the trade-offs of these models between cultural diversity

and state security.

The United States does not have an official integration policy. In the tradition of non-

intervention in social policy, Castles et al write how the US authorities regard special polices for

immigrants as unnecessary government intervention (Castles et al, 280). The lack of policies for

integrating immigrants largely leaves themselves to integrate, with mixed results. This leaves

irregular migrants and those without the education level unable to receive benefits or a chance at

citizenship, which works to alienate them. It also leads minorities to form ethnic communities

where they share the same cultural beliefs and values. These communities build social capital,

micro-economies and allow for cultural diversity. If one is to visit any major cities Chinatown,

they would be able to see how segregated yet pluralistic the USAs immigration policy is. It

allows for these communities to negotiate their American identity themselves. Americas lack of

a formal integration policy leaves immigrants to sink or swim, to separate or integrate in their

new home.

France works on an assimilationist integration policy, where new arrivals and historically

colonial minorities are integrated into a secular national identity. It works on the idealistic

republican model wherein recognition of cultural difference or ethnic communities is

unacceptable. The idea is that immigrants should become citizens, and will then enjoy equal

opportunities (Castles et. al, pg. 275). This policy works under the assumption that if minorities
Politics of immigration: final Exam 16

are able to assimilate into French culture, the will become part of the national brotherhood under

the values of the French revolution. However, their official policy of secularism has led to social

friction. Only last year, heated debate over womens rights to wear hijabs in public resulted in

worldwide outrage against their model of integration. Minorities in France, despite the fraternal

ideals of national unity, face discrimination and racism. French Presidential Candidate Marine Le

Pen has challenged their immigration and integration policies, calling for increased surveillance

of Muslim communities. France has been plagued by their ideals of national unity and the

security; monthly terror attacks illuminate the discontent and weakness in integrating Muslim

minorities.

The last model to examine is the Canadas multicultural model. Canadian

Multiculturalism is defined by Castle et al, which implies both the willingness of the majority

group to accept cultural difference and state action to secure equal rights for minorities (Castle

et al, pg. 270). This policy of government intervention to ensure fair and equal treatment works

to both accept the differences and integrate minorities into the Canadian mosaic. The government

provides money for minority advocacy organizations, thereby legitimizes and promotes

symbolic ethnicity while also pushing for immigrations incorporation into the social, economic

and political fabric (Bloemraad, pg. 141). This policy safeguards the culture of immigrants

while allowing for plurality, unlike Frances policy which calls for them to drop cultural

practices in favor for a national identity. This model works best for the promotion of cultural

diversity, but also helps address state security by making minorities more comfortable with

asking authorities for help.

All three models work to integrate their migrant populations in different ways, with

different results for each. Lastly, we can examine some trade-offs with each model in regards for
Politics of immigration: final Exam 17

the promotion of cultural diversity and state security. The American model allows for cultural

diversity to flourish without state intervention, leaving immigrants a canvas for which to bring

their unique identity to. However, this system leaves minorities with little outreach from the

government. Compared to Canada, their system uses government intervention to integrate and

incorporate minorities into their mosaic. France intervenes to force their immigrants under a

banner of secularism and a national French identity; aspects of French culture are highlighted

while cultural and religious symbols like hijabs are banned. This last model is a dialectical force

for terrorists to capitalize on. If minorities feel oppressed by the government, they are more

inclined to not assimilate and in some cases, radicalize under this pretext. America and Canada

both face terrorism as well, but immigration and integration with regards to state security is more

focused on the US-Mexico border. Each model promotes or downplays cultural diversity and

state security to find their own unique balance.

Question 5:

In Irene Bloemraads formative book on the politics of immigration, Becoming A Citizen,

she emphasizes political incorporation as the pretext for full integration for immigrants in their

host nations. The history and philosophical roots of each nation play heavily into both America

and Canadas state-citizen relationships. This essay will seek to pick apart her groundbreaking

work to better understand how history and policy impact effect immigrant communitys political

mobilization.

The origins of both the United States and Canada lie in their allegiance to the Crown in

Britain, with the latter a loyal statist and the former a treasonous republic. Among the United

States first grievances against the King was in 1773 when London banned colonial

naturalization, which led the founding fathers to introduce the radical idea of citizenship in the
Politics of immigration: final Exam 18

Articles of Confederation (Bloemraad, pg. 20). This idea was transformative and introduced

citizenship instead of being a subject. Initially, it was restricted to white Anglo-Saxon men and

was later expanded to include more free persons, including free blacks and Chinese eventually

(Bloemraad, pg. 21). In the modern era, this system of citizenship has modernized into an

English exam, proof of residency and basic American history. This formative path however

provides roadblocks to American 10+ million irregular migrants who live here undocumented.

The American tradition of citizenship leaves citizens relatively unchecked by the government

unless they choose to naturalize themselves. However, this hands-off system provides new

arrivals with little knowledge of the political system, leaving their political incorporation

minimal at best. This system also cuts immigrants out of the social system until they are citizens.

Canadas system of citizenship is described as incremental, evolved in polite revolts

against British tutelage (Bloemraad, pg. 23). Canadian Citizenship can largely be defined as

subjects under the crown, which was not true citizenship but allotted privileges anywhere in the

British Empire. Bloemraad writes how in 1947 the Canadian Citizenship Act was passed, thus

established for the first time clear, legal Canadian Citizenship, accompanied by the first

Canadian passport (Bloemraad, pg. 24). What this can tell us this that the Canadian State was

not considered a nation-state with complete autonomy from the Crown until later on;

incorporation of immigrants into society was not a priority until later multicultural policies were

introduced; anyone could become a citizen after this was introduced. In addition to their

citizenship polices, Canadas social safety net includes immigrants, granting benefits to non-

citizens as well as citizens.This tradition has led Canada to a state that does hold a heavily belief

in Canadian identity or nationalism, leaving them more open to having dual identities than some

hardline Americans.
Politics of immigration: final Exam 19

These different rituals of citizenship and State-Citizen interactions leads us to today. Both

this history and their policies impact the political incorporation of immigrants into society. As

defined by Bloemraad, political incorporation is a synthesis of both full citizenship and

participatory citizenship, the first being acquisition of legal or formal citizenship and

engagement in the political system of the adopted country (Bloemrad, pg. 5). We will use this

framework to understand how political participation, history and policy affect how immigrants

lead and win political office.

One major finding from this extensive study concluded that for community leaders,

government settlement and diversity polices often eased their path (Bloemraad, pg. 191). This

process in Canada assisted community leaders (and later, politicians) into advocating with their

own voices. The state-back multicultural polices of Canada allotted new immigrants with the

tools and finances to build community organizations. For an individual covered in the book,

Canadian-born son of Portuguese immigrants, Dan, found employment helping immigrants as a

coordinator of interpretation services Today he runs one of those agencies (Bloemraad, 191).

On an individual level, state-back polices led this son of an immigrant to have a career in

community organizing. He became an integral component of the integration process for new

Portuguese arrivals, thus inspiring and integrating a whole new generation of migrants. This

history of Canada is important to recognize in our analysis. This means for the future history of

Canada, Portuguese will be incorporated into not only the political system, but will feel

Canadian as well.

Overall, Bloemraads book explains to us the key differences between the philosophical

roots of citizenship in both American and Canada, and how the history of each contribute to
Politics of immigration: final Exam 20

immigration policies today. Political incorporation is key to integrating any migrants into their

newfound homes.
Politics of immigration: final Exam 21

References

http://www.yementimes.com/en/1811/opinion/4265/Yemen%E2%80%99s-Brain-Drain.htm