Citizenship and Language Requirements

[someone]

Requiring immigrants to lean one of the office language before they get citizenship seems like a very reasonable requirement to me. Thoughts?


IMMIGRATION
Basic French-English language skills needed or citizenship denied, federal minister says
BILL GRAVELAND
The Canadian Press
March 21, 2009
CALGARY -- Immigrants who can't speak English or French well enough should be denied citizenship, a federal politician says.
Canada needs to improve its efforts to integrate newcomers, Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, said yesterday.
"I believe one area that we can ask immigrants in the country to make a greater effort [in] is that of language," Mr. Kenney said in a speech to an immigration conference in Calgary.
"Last January I was in Delhi and sat in on a few immigration interviews. I encountered one woman who has lived in Canada for 15 years and been a Canadian citizen for nearly 12 years," he said.
"This woman was sponsoring a spouse to come to Canada but she could not conduct the interview with an official in either of our official languages. It made me wonder - is this an isolated example? Regrettably, I don't think it's isolated enough."
Mr. Kenney later told reporters that immigration needs an overhaul and a key effort must be to ensure that immigrants and those who want to become new Canadians speak a competent level of French or English.
He said the requirement is already there but isn't being enforced strictly enough.
"In terms of the citizenship, if you can't complete the test in one of those two languages, you're not supposed to become a citizen, which I don't think is harsh," he said.
"It's just basically saying go back and study more and come back to us when you can get by in one of those languages."
Mr. Kenney worries that granting citizenship without guaranteeing language skills puts a new Canadian at an economic and social disadvantage.
And he wants to know how some people who can't speak either of Canada's official languages got through the system.
"All I can say is if someone can't conduct an immigration interview in English or French they don't have basic competences.
"I have citizenship judges tell me that frequently people are given a pass even though they don't have that ability."
The NDP immigration critic, Toronto MP Olivia Chow, said language is important, but it shouldn't be the only criterion.
"If the government is saying if you're not fluent in English or French then you can't be citizens, I have a real problem with that," said Ms. Chow, who sat in on Mr. Kenney's speech.
"My mother's not very fluent in English but she makes a very good citizen. She's been in Canada since 1970 but she had to work in a hotel for many years to raise her family, even though she was a school teacher," Ms. Chow said. "Is it her fault her English isn't fluent? No. Does she make a good citizen? Yes, I think so."
Ms. Chow argues there should be subsidies available for immigrants so they can attend languages classes but not have to worry about missing work so they can feed their families.
A conference organizer chose her words carefully when reacting to Mr. Kenney's speech.
"I think it probably raised a few eyebrows," said Tracey Derwing, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Alberta. Her area of expertise is how people learn second languages.
"The [citizenship] test is a multiple-choice test so people are expected to get 12 out of 20 questions right. And if they're not able to do it, then they're interviewed by a judge and asked the questions orally," she said. "I don't think it's really possible in every instance for people to gain the language skills they need before coming from overseas."
http://www.google.com/search?q=part...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBR

 

[WoodPeckr]

Agreed.
You should be required to know the language of the country you move to.

 

[oldjones]

OK guys, they're already required to pass a test on Canadian government and history in one of the official languages with 60%, what sort of test and passing percentage would you think appropriate?

Try not to set the bar so high as to exclude too many TERBards for bad English, and political ignorance.

 

[WoodPeckr]

60%?
Thought it should be the same as HS, 65%.

 

[Tangwhich]

OK guys, they're already required to pass a test on Canadian government and history in one of the official languages with 60%, what sort of test and passing percentage would you think appropriate?

Try not to set the bar so high as to exclude too many TERBards for bad English, and political ignorance.

I've taken that "test". You'd have to have brain damage not to pass as it's so easy.

 

[Rockslinger]

Language is no longer an issue with their Canadian born children and grandchildren. So, if it is an issue it is only for the original folks who "got off the boat". Furthermore, more and more immigrants are learning English (not French unfortunately) in their native country before they emmigrate. I met a recent mainland Chinese immigrant and was surprised by her command of the English language and she told me she studied English while back home in China. BTW I heard there is a great demand for English teachers in Asia for those interested.

Unless we want to suffer the fate of Japan, we need immigrants and their offsprings.

 

[Don]

Language is not an issue for skilled/educated immmigrants, nor for childern of immigrants (who are not immigrants but simply Canadian). As you mentioned, more and more immigrants have learned English in their native countries. It is the un-educated immigrants (refugee applicants, family members, etc) that is the issue.

 

[Bearlythere]

Olivia Chow doesn't think language is an issue? Of course she wouldn't, half her riding doens't speak english and she wants to get re-elected. Olivia Chow is an idiot and has been for a while now. If you cannot function in either of Canada's official languages you shouldn't be given citizenship. Period. I am not asking for fluency and Iam not asking for them to write me an essay on the merits of Parliamentry Democracy but I would like them to at least be capable of carrying on some form of conversation.

I didn't say they couldn't live here and NOT speak the language. As landed immigrants or refugee's I wouldn't expect them to speak the language but when you are becoming a citizen you have to speak the language. PERIOD. It is farcical for people to have lived here 20 years and NEVER use English or French. Only in Canada would we even HAVE this conversation. Tolerance is one thing, stupidity is another. Again, Olivia Chow chose stupidity along with that bicycle riding moron husband of hers.....

 

[oldjones]

I've taken that "test". You'd have to have brain damage not to pass as it's so easy.

So? What would you suggest would be better. Easy to whine, try being constructive.

Wikkipedia cites an Angus Reid poll that found 45% of Canadian citizens could not pass that test. So we need your help Tang

 

[WoodPeckr]

Olivia Chow doesn't think language is an issue? Of course she wouldn't, half her riding doens't speak english and she wants to get re-elected.

Smug Bearlythinkin', may be in need some boning up on remedial English himself.
Olivia looks like a delighful asian milf ..... you no likey?....

 

[oldjones]

Olivia Chow doesn't think language is an issue? Of course she wouldn't, half her riding doens't speak english and she wants to get re-elected. Olivia Chow is an idiot and has been for a while now. If you cannot function in either of Canada's official languages you shouldn't be given citizenship. Period. I am not asking for fluency and Iam not asking for them to write me an essay on the merits of Parliamentry Democracy but I would like them to at least be capable of carrying on some form of conversation.

I didn't say they couldn't live here and NOT speak the language. As landed immigrants or refugee's I wouldn't expect them to speak the language but when you are becoming a citizen you have to speak the language. PERIOD. It is farcical for people to have lived here 20 years and NEVER use English or French. Only in Canada would we even HAVE this conversation. Tolerance is one thing, stupidity is another. Again, Olivia Chow chose stupidity along with that bicycle riding moron husband of hers.....

First of all, if you're criticizing other people for not learning the language, you should be setting an example. Fix your spelling and syntax.

You're quite right to say, "…when you are becoming a citizen you have to speak the language", and they do. But, what you have failed to do is give us any idea of what standard you think they should meet, and are not meeting now. A 20 minute oral exam? Accents will be a problem, how do you propose to standardise the examiner's ears?

Then, after you say it's OK to live here and not speak the language, you say it's farcical to have lived here for 20 years and NEVER use English or French. Which is it? Or is it OK for nineteen years but farcical on the twentieth anniversery?

But what's truly shooting yourself in the foot is that you might really believe "Only in Canada would we even HAVE this conversation" about citizens who don't speak the language. Did you miss the entire US immigration brouhaha of the last few years? Are you completely unaware of the rioting in the Paris banlieus, or how the Dutch retrenched their immigration policy? It's a human problem; it's worldwide, and the Romans used to complain about it too.

So start by making your post read a little more like the English you think immigrants should be learning, and on the way thru, maybe think it over a little more.

 

[Bearlythere]

First of all, if you're criticizing other people for not learning the language, you should be setting an example. Fix your spelling and syntax.

You're quite right to say, "…when you are becoming a citizen you have to speak the language", and they do. But, what you have failed to do is give us any idea of what standard you think they should meet, and are not meeting now. A 20 minute oral exam? Accents will be a problem, how do you propose to standardise the examiner's ears?

Then, after you say it's OK to live here and not speak the language, you say it's farcical to have lived here for 20 years and NEVER use English or French. Which is it? Or is it OK for nineteen years but farcical on the twentieth anniversery?

But what's truly shooting yourself in the foot is that you might really believe "Only in Canada would we even HAVE this conversation" about citizens who don't speak the language. Did you miss the entire US immigration brouhaha of the last few years? Are you completely unaware of the rioting in the Paris banlieus, or how the Dutch retrenched their immigration policy? It's a human problem; it's worldwide, and the Romans used to complain about it too.

So start by making your post read a little more like the English you think immigrants should be learning, and on the way thru, maybe think it over a little more.

First off, If I was doing this to impress an English teacher, I would have spent more than 5 minutes typing out my thoughts. Don't know if you noticed but this is a political forum on an ESCORT REVIEW BOARD. Hello.....my English and Grammar are probably on par with the average for the board, which last time I looked was about just debating and sharing ideas.

Now for the meat of it. I have no problem with an accent if I can understand what is being said to me. I do realize not everyone is going to have an accent that is acceptable but the principle of people actually being able to speak enough of one of the languages of the country and being able to read in those languages isn't too much to ask. Tell me where I am wrong.

As for my point that only in Canada would we be having this conversation may be a bit weak in light of your pointing out the French and the US illegals. Again, we are talking about legal immigrants being made citizens without language skills. This debate isn't being held on those grounds in the US. It is a condition of their citizenship that you have enough language skills in English, their official language. The French with their immigrants and THAT debate I am not as familiar with I admit, but it must be pointed out we have a MP in parliament advocating people do NOT have to speak or read either one of the official languages to gain citizenship. If the French are having this exact same debate, then show me where. I suspect they are not naive about the damage that can do to a society.

Language, in which you have been so anal about my misuse of grammar and spelling is the one thing that binds us together to work together. If we cannot understand one another, then society suffers. The country suffers. I stated I understand landed immigrants, visitors and refugees wont speak either English or French all the time, I get that. I just feel they should make the effort to learn and prove that ability when they take their citizenship test.

Now you can ridicule me or not but again, I think your attack was politically motivated and you have to understand my contempt for Chow and Layton. I grew up in a NDP household and I understand a lot of what the political left in this country stands for, but I will never have any time for either one of these political opportunists. I am a right of centre libertarian and I don't see this as a right or left argument but when someone like Chow comes along and criticizes Kenney for wanting some level of competancy for citizenship, it reminds me once again why Chow is out to lunch. Citizenship has to have some meaning and value and one of the ways we can measure that is by making sure anyone in this country has a working knowledge of the language so they are employable, or at least able to communicate with the community at large. Only a fool would NOT want this...but there in the article is Chow...

There. Happy? Probably not....

 

[oldjones]

First off, If I was doing this to impress an English teacher, I would have spent more than 5 minutes typing out my thoughts. Don't know if you noticed but this is a political forum on an ESCORT REVIEW BOARD. Hello.....my English and Grammar are probably on par with the average for the board, which last time I looked was about just debating and sharing ideas.

If you're goona complain about other people; make sure you're setting an example. "Glass houses, the beam in you own eye etc., etc. If you think an ESCORT REVIEW BOARD political forum is only worth your second or third class effort, then we'll imagine that applies to your thoughts as well as your writing.

Now for the meat of it. I have no problem with an accent if I can understand what is being said to me. I do realize not everyone is going to have an accent that is acceptable but the principle of people actually being able to speak enough of one of the languages of the country and being able to read in those languages isn't too much to ask. Tell me where I am wrong.

I have no problem with the principle; almost no one would. But how ever would you apply it? Tell me. (Second time of asking) That's where the accent thing comes in. How can you possibly train a corps of examiners to have uniform accent penetration skills? And that's the simple part.

As for my point that only in Canada would we be having this conversation may be a bit weak in light of your pointing out the French and the US illegals. Again, we are talking about legal immigrants being made citizens without language skills. This debate isn't being held on those grounds in the US. It is a condition of their citizenship that you have enough language skills in English, their official language.

It's not " may be a bit weak", it's plain wrong. Unassimilated, unilingual citizens were definitely complained of frequently during the recent US squabbles. The US naturalization requirement, and the Canadian are rather similar. The Canadian: "An applicant for citizenship must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of one of Canada’s two official languages." somewhat less detailed than the US: "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language." So please 'splain howcum we're so uniquely lax in our requirements. (I get to use unconventional English, because I'm not complaining about language, but about hypocrisy)

The French with their immigrants and THAT debate I am not as familiar with I admit, but it must be pointed out we have a MP in parliament advocating people do NOT have to speak or read either one of the official languages to gain citizenship. If the French are having this exact same debate, then show me where. I suspect they are not naive about the damage that can do to a society.

The French, like the Dutch and the ancient Romans I mentioned after the US as further examples that your complaint is perennial and eternal wherever immigrants settle. Please quote this MP directly; you've been fast and loose enough on other points, I'm not responding to just your version.

Language, in which you have been so anal about my misuse of grammar and spelling is the one thing that binds us together to work together. If we cannot understand one another, then society suffers. The country suffers. I stated I understand landed immigrants, visitors and refugees wont speak either English or French all the time, I get that. I just feel they should make the effort to learn and prove that ability when they take their citizenship test.

Fine sentiments, but if you really believe language is that important, I truly don't understand how you can excuse your own bad usage when criticizing others for their supposed—no actual examples of these immigrants have been cited, or the deleterious effect of such monoglots on our society—failings

Now you can ridicule me or not but again, I think your attack was politically motivated and you have to understand my contempt for Chow and Layton. I grew up in a NDP household and I understand a lot of what the political left in this country stands for, but I will never have any time for either one of these political opportunists. I am a right of centre libertarian and I don't see this as a right or left argument but when someone like Chow comes along and criticizes Kenney for wanting some level of competancy for citizenship, it reminds me once again why Chow is out to lunch. Citizenship has to have some meaning and value and one of the ways we can measure that is by making sure anyone in this country has a working knowledge of the language so they are employable, or at least able to communicate with the community at large. Only a fool would NOT want this...but there in the article is Chow...

There. Happy? Probably not....

Au contraire, go on about politics all you want. I share your Jack Attack (he's my MP), but have rather a better opinion of Olivia, from across town. But it's irrelevant to the matter of a test that will enforce the requirement that's in the law. It's tempting to paraphrase you and say "Only a fool would want this", but you're not a fool, no more than Kenney. But it's a lot easier to say than do. Please give your own position the due respect of giving at least some thought and expression to how you would bring that about.

Or they will be just empty words deserving ridicule.

 

[Tangwhich]

So? What would you suggest would be better. Easy to whine, try being constructive.

Wikkipedia cites an Angus Reid poll that found 45% of Canadian citizens could not pass that test. So we need your help Tang

Whine? I was just pointing out from your posting about the fact that people are required to take this test really does not give any indication as to their language skills. I'm not offering any solutions, just pointing this out.

The fact that so many Canadians could not pass the test is pathetic and is a sad statement for our society. New Canadians are able to prepare for it though and should be able to pass it with ease.

 

[oldjones]

Testing people on a given subject also tests their language skilis. If you don't think it's an adequate test of them, suggest how it could or should be improved. Fault-finding without any constructive suggestion definitely risks being labelled a whine.

We already require a level of language skill; almost no one would disagree with the principle. It's easy and cheap to point fingers and say, "there's someone who's skill's too low for citizenship." The hard part is setting the level, and even harder determining the test for that level, that you believe should be the requirement.

So far this thread's full of fault-finder's and not a single one has actually examined or discussed how such a test might be devised or administered.
It's not as if that's asking for a list of detailed exam questions; we might start with whether it would be written, oral, both, or either at the discretion of the tester or of the testee? Whether it would be administered abroad (by cheap local staff, or expensive Canucks on living allowances) or here (cheap contracts, or expensive swivel servants), how demanding time-wise it might be, or whether it would be language only, or combine with Canadian-knowledge content, essay, multi-choice, computer-graded?

TERB is full of cheap shooters, inflating their tighty-whities by blazing away at easy victims. This 'debate' is just another example. No one is arguing there should be no test. Anyone who doesn't want to be numbered among those inanely cursing the darkness needs to step up and shed some light on their idea of where the path should go.

 

[Tangwhich]

Ok then, I'll give you a suggestion.
Make the citizenship test a one on one oral test. Taking a multiple choice test that you've studied for is meaningless.

I would also like to reiterate that I was not making a comment on the original topic of this thread. I was pointing out that the citizenship test does not qualify as a language test, as you seemed to imply in an earlier post. You can call it a whine if you like, it was not. I was simply pointing something out.

 

[oldjones]

Ok then, I'll give you a suggestion.
Make the citizenship test a one on one oral test. Taking a multiple choice test that you've studied for is meaningless.

I would also like to reiterate that I was not making a comment on the original topic of this thread. I was pointing out that the citizenship test does not qualify as a language test, as you seemed to imply in an earlier post. You can call it a whine if you like, it was not. I was simply pointing something out.

Any test is also a test of your use and understanding of the laguage, even a math test, unless it's all equations, and in the days when spelling counted, it counted in math too. Of course you may want a higher standard of language achievement than the current test provides, but it provides some.

Similarly, any interview is an oral competence test, though presumably you want a higher standard and Minister Kenney certainly does. But if we take his little story as an example, there's a whole flock of issues anyone proposing such an 'improved' test will have to consider and provide for. Not the least of which is the expense. Tougher standards require tougher enforcement and that costs money.

Remember the story?:

"Last January I was in Delhi and sat in on a few immigration interviews. I encountered one woman who has lived in Canada for 15 years and been a Canadian citizen for nearly 12 years," he said.
"This woman was sponsoring a spouse to come to Canada but she could not conduct the interview with an official in either of our official languages.

Some of the issues: The official might not have been competent to pose clear questions, to understand answers that weren't exactly what she was expecting, or to detect an acceptable answer through a thick accent. The interviewer's personality or presentation may have been frightening, dismissive, or impatient, or completely outside the woman's social experience. Any of the above could cause the failure to communicate without ever actually revealing how much English she knew or how well she used it. Never mind issues like: deafness, a sinus cold, what education level she had and what was the level of the questions, what sort of vocabulary the interviewer used, what subjects were addressed and such.

When she became a citizen, this woman may have been quite sufficiently fluent, and declined since for any number of reasons, age, social isolation, but that's as irrelevant to what we might demand of new applicants as is that shameful ignorance of natural-born citizens of what we insist new citizens know.

So we solve all those problems; we have a College of Immigration Interviewers who pass a rigourous course in objective, inoffensive, questioning, whose hearing is regularly tested, who are immune from ethnic prejudice, and trained by speech pathologists in accent discrimination.

They're young, physically fit—because we expect them to interview and report the results on what? one person every 45minutes? Ten a day? How long do you think before burnout? We'll have a Canuck version of "going postal". StatsCan's doing site maintenance today but the MotherCorp reported, "Approximately 262,000 people became Canadians in 2005" which would need 26,200 interviewer/days, or a few over a hundred interviewer/years to process to keep the current pace.

So congrats, we've just added a hundred staffers, plus their training facility, teachers and program developers, supervisors and such to the immigration budget. And we still haven't supplied them with offices, furniture, computers or support staff to schedule all those appointments and report the results. Nor have we yet considered that Canada has, not one, but two official languages to do all this in.

All this, and do we really think a guy like Kenney—never mind someone actually xenophobic—won't have just as easy a time coming up with a granny who's lost what English or French she ever studied up to pass? It'll fix nothing.

But maybe it suggests why the test we do have is on concrete subjects, multiple choice style, easy to administer, easy to present uniformly, and easy to mark. If we think too easy to pass, we can easily—love that word—make it tougher.

But do go ahead, if you think it's sensible. Just don't take it out of my taxes OK? And don't imagine all subsequent new citizens will be any better than the old lot at the Queen's English or le français pur because of it.

Or we could do like the Swiss, and make your whole town vote you in. Or not.

 

[landscaper]

The concept of fitting in in your new home has gone by the wayside, now the apparent system is the new home can accomodate you.

Just one example when you write the test for your drivers licence you no longer actually write it you answer multiple choice questions on a computer screen, the language that you read on the screen is controlable by you so you can do the test in what ever language that you want.

The big problem with that is now you are driving around what ever town we will use Toronto for now, You are driving along the 401 and need to get off at Keele St but you cant read english or French. You have your little note in your hand that has Keele St written on it and you are reading all the road signs trying to match the picture at what ever speed you are going at.

The above situation actually happened and resulted in an accident, the case careless driving was dismissed because the driver did not understand the written laws and was held not accountable.

So I am thinking there is a very good reason to ensure a working ability in the language ,either language.

 

[good to go]

The concept of fitting in in your new home has gone by the wayside, now the apparent system is the new home can accomodate you.

Just one example when you write the test for your drivers licence you no longer actually write it you answer multiple choice questions on a computer screen, the language that you read on the screen is controlable by you so you can do the test in what ever language that you want.

The big problem with that is now you are driving around what ever town we will use Toronto for now, You are driving along the 401 and need to get off at Keele St but you cant read english or French. You have your little note in your hand that has Keele St written on it and you are reading all the road signs trying to match the picture at what ever speed you are going at.

The above situation actually happened and resulted in an accident, the case careless driving was dismissed because the driver did not understand the written laws and was held not accountable.

So I am thinking there is a very good reason to ensure a working ability in the language ,either language.

Agreed, they must be able to communicate or they will be on the dole for life. This should not even be an issue except for the politicians who need their votes.

 

[Bearlythere]

If you're goona complain about other people; make sure you're setting an example. "Glass houses, the beam in you own eye etc., etc. If you think an ESCORT REVIEW BOARD political forum is only worth your second or third class effort, then we'll imagine that applies to your thoughts as well as your writing. I have no problem with the principle; almost no one would. But how ever would you apply it? Tell me. (Second time of asking) That's where the accent thing comes in. How can you possibly train a corps of examiners to have uniform accent penetration skills? And that's the simple part. It's not " may be a bit weak", it's plain wrong. Unassimilated, unilingual citizens were definitely complained of frequently during the recent US squabbles. The US naturalization requirement, and the Canadian are rather similar. The Canadian: "An applicant for citizenship must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of one of Canada’s two official languages." somewhat less detailed than the US: "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language." So please 'splain howcum we're so uniquely lax in our requirements. (I get to use unconventional English, because I'm not complaining about language, but about hypocrisy)The French, like the Dutch and the ancient Romans I mentioned after the US as further examples that your complaint is perennial and eternal wherever immigrants settle. Please quote this MP directly; you've been fast and loose enough on other points, I'm not responding to just your version.Fine sentiments, but if you really believe language is that important, I truly don't understand how you can excuse your own bad usage when criticizing others for their supposed—no actual examples of these immigrants have been cited, or the deleterious effect of such monoglots on our society—failings Au contraire, go on about politics all you want. I share your Jack Attack (he's my MP), but have rather a better opinion of Olivia, from across town. But it's irrelevant to the matter of a test that will enforce the requirement that's in the law. It's tempting to paraphrase you and say "Only a fool would want this", but you're not a fool, no more than Kenney. But it's a lot easier to say than do. Please give your own position the due respect of giving at least some thought and expression to how you would bring that about.

Or they will be just empty words deserving ridicule.

What would be a good test of language? What would prove fluency? THAT is the rub I will admit. I will say though what Kenney was getting at was the fact (and you and I both know this living in the GTA) is that there are people in this country who have lived here a long time with Canadian Passports who still function basically as if they were back in the old country. They took the citizenship test with an interpreter and still have no functioning ability to communicate in English or French.

What Kenney is saying is that this cant continue. Accents are not the issue for me. I have a hard time with accents but I wont knock someone else's ability to enunciate because I have a hearing issue. I will however demand that people who become citizens take some sort of fluency test. How that is designed or set up I will leave to the bureaucracy and politicians but some sort of standard has to be put out there for citizenship. I know that people just of the plane will not have the language skills and refugees likely may not have them either. I just know that for conventional immigrants willingly coming to this country, I don't want to look at them 20 years down the road, with Canadian passports and citizenship, and not be able to have a functioning conversation with them if I need to have one. Rudimentry language skills are required, not perfect grammar.

I never advocated the language skills required pass a university standard.