English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Two things weigh on my mind as the process of getting this volume to press draws to a close. The first is that the response to our call for papers demonstrates how important this call truly is, and how far we still have to go as a community of knowledge to fully answer it. The second is that public debate about refugee integration flourishes despite the lack of knowledge, in ways that ought to alarm us. The opportunity of introducing this collection allows me to address both of these concerns. I will do so in reverse order. In mid-October I was mulling over some (different) introductory remarks when I happened upon Martin Collacott's comment in The Globe and Mail (15 October 2007, p. A17). Collacott's subject was the appropriate role for Canada in responding to massive population displacement in and around Iraq. The thesis he was pursuing was that Canada should be wary how many of these people (many of whom are refugees--which is not my point, just yet) should be resettled in Canada because, in Collacott's view, they will face integration problems. Interestingly, Martin Collacott did not make a submission to this volume. Despite his assertions of knowledge about refugee resettlement, delivered in a tone of sober authority. There are many ways to counter Collacott's argument. These include a careful assessment of the harms of protracted camp existence (the only alternative to resettlement available at this time); an exploration of what counts as a 'success' in Canada; according some agency to those caught up in this crisis, who undoubtedly have views about their own futures; evaluating when integration difficulties can be sheeted home to individuals and when they must reasonably rest with the host society. Another vital counter is to consider the firm distinction between immigrants and refugees. Immigrants come to Canada on the basis of governmental 'selection' because of some economic or family role which they fulfill. These categories are frayed at the edges, I know, but they conform broadly with the contours of our law and policy. Refugees come to Canada because they are at risk of being persecuted elsewhere. Either they make it to Canada on their own and then demonstrate that they fit this descriptor, or they are identified as fitting it and are then assisted to come here. If we do not have expectations about integration which reflect this crucial difference, we will fall into the trap of treating refugees like immigrants. Because many refugees are resourceful and independent, and have honed their basic survival skills in ways that most of us cannot imagine, this trap is sometimes not obvious. But it should be. Canada welcomes refugees because of a legal obligation or a humanitarian impulse, not because of something they can do for us, or because they will 'fit in' well. Expecting refugees to behave like immigrants, and to conform statistically to our pictures of immigrants, will lead to failures of law and policy, as well as failures of compassion. Quite the opposite outcomes of what Collacott suggests. An example of this conceit was published in the Vancouver Province on the same day as Collacott made The Globe and Mail. Under the headline, 'Integrating Immigrants? You're Doing Fine, Canada' Randy Boswell reported on the Migrant Integration Policy Index for this year in which Canada ranked equal fifth with Finland (and ahead of 22 other, mostly European, countries). The Migrant Integration Policy Index is an enormous undertaking, funded by the European Union and produced by a network of twenty-five organizations, with the British Council assuming the lead. It measures integration in six areas: labour market access, family reunion, long-term residence, political participation, access to nationality and discrimination. Twenty-five indicators are assessed in total. It is an ambitious and important project, and I am very pleased to see that Canada is participating. Other traditional nations of immigration such as Australia, the United States and New Zealand are not yet doing so. …

Informing Integration: Assessing What We Know, Admitting What We Don’t Know