DJ said:
There is a debate I've heard condemning Canada's recruitment of educated people from the developing regions in the Global South, basically saying that it's a selfish measure that does more harm than good by hindering the development of lesser developed countries. I was wondering what others thought of this argument in relation to this post...
DJ
First, it is broadly true; we further weaken poor countries, increasing their dependency on
our charity (aid) when we hire away their doctors and engineers.
But,
second, some countries, not the poorest of the poor, of course, have a real surplus of well educated, sophisticated people who are chafing under a lack of socio-economic opportunity in their homes. Those countries - China and India, most notably -
want many of these people (in whom they (the Chinese and Indian people/governments) have invested heavily) to leave, lest they ferment discontent and unrest at home.
It is generally true that migrants retain close ties with their homelands. Those hundreds of thousands of well educated, sophisticated and entrepreneurial Chinese and Indians who move to (mainly) Australia and North America provide a
conduit through which new trade and commerce flows (but some would say that conduit is, really, a
fifth column).
I'm going to digress a bit, hoping this will stay within topic.
We must, first of all recognize, that there is a fundamental difference between refugees and our refugee policy, on one hand, and migrants and our immigration policy on the other.
We, like all civilized countries, have a moral duty to help those who are fleeing imminent threats to life and limb. Most refugees, in most places, want to return home. Our main refugee efforts should be aimed at:
"¢
Reducing the need to flee by preventing the sorts of political disasters which plague places like Somalia and Haiti. This means that countries like Canada should help to form an lead
coalitions to implement
Pink Lloyd Axworthy's
human security and
responsibility to protect doctrines by armed intervention into the internal affairs of
failing (and failed) states; and
"¢ Helping to settle, house feed
and employ refugees near their homes - obviating the requirements for them to leave the area and become caught in the web of Canadian refugee determination and sporadic welfare and rule breaking.
Our immigration policy should be 99%, self serving. We should aim to recruit and retain the people we want - not just those who want to come here. We should, the other 1%, eschew recruiting people from the poorest-of-the-poor - we should, in fact (as another policy aim) try to improve the education and opportunities in those desperately poor nations by building local schools and staffing them with as many Canadian (well) paid locals as possible and funding local businesses and enterprises - even those which compete, as they will, with e.g. highly protected, heavily unionized, Québec based textile mills.
Just as an example, I would close most (say 3/4) immigration offices in Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America and reduce the remainder, plus all the ones in Europe, to half staff. I would open many new immigration offices in China, India and the (to a lesser extent) the Malaysia and the Philippines and I would double the staff in most Asian offices. Then we might get 300,000 of the educated, productive, easily integrated immigrants we want and need, including as members of the Canadian Forces, - and their parents, too (who, traditionally, look after the children while both men and women work, hard).
I wasn't being racist... I'm the farthest thing from it.
