Página 28 - Inmigrantes internacionales, ciudad y servicios sociales urbanos: el desafío de la integración con diversidad

Segunda Parte / “Buenas Prácticas en Servicios Locales e Integración del Inmigrante, Profesor Michael Leaf (UBC)“
26
Michael Leaf
compares the total number of immigrants
against the total population, there are twice
as many immigrants on a per capita basis
in Canada than in the US (though such
figures exclude the much larger proportion
of “undocumented” immigrants in the US
than in Canada – another outcome of the
Canadian pro-immigration policy context).
A second point to keep in mind regarding
the “place-ness” of migration flows is that in
this global context, migration increasingly is an
urban (or city-to-city) phenomenon, rather than
in international phenomenon. The example
here from the Canadian case is that fully 94%
of all recent immigrants are living in Canada’s
cities, with the great majority of these (73%)
concentrated in the three largest metropolitan
areas of Toronto, Montreal andVancouver. A
distinct trend toward greater concentration in
this regard is apparent over time, as 66% of
immigrants arriving in the 1980s were living
inToronto, Montreal, orVancouver as of 1991,
in comparison to 58% of immigrants arriving
in the 1970s who resided in these three cities
in 1981.
The policy contexts of Canada and Vancouver
This increasing focus on cities (rather
than nation-states) as the receiving zones of
migration flows has very direct implications
for how we think about policy, and in
particular, policy for immigrant integration.
Simply put, one may discern an increasing
disconnect between policy-setting (and
policy intentions) between national and
local (municipal) levels of government,
with the policies of national governments
determining the basic conditions of
international migration flows, while local
governments are left to deal with the
on-the-ground consequences of national
immigration rules in areas such as housing,
employment and social services for new
immigrant groups. National governments
set immigration policies, local governments
must deal with their consequences.
In the case of Canada, it should be pointed
out that Canada is a country and society
largely made up of immigrants. It should also
be pointed out how the policy context for
accepting migrants has shifted dramatically
over the course of the twentieth century. The
first half of the century is noteworthy for its
racially based restrictiveness, essentially aimed
at maintaining Canada as a “white” society
by allowing migration from northern and
western Europe while limiting newcomers
from elsewhere, particularly the Asian streams
of movement which had already come to
characterize the nineteenth century.
This picture changd quite dramatically in
the post-War era, when an economic rationale
replaced notions of cultural or racial purity
as the basis for migration policy. Although
arguably a socially progressive policy shift, it
was understood fundamentally that Canada
needed to expand its skilled labour supply in
order to foster post-War economic growth;
thus it was beneficial to the nation to draw
upon a global (and not just European) pool
of talent to achieve this goal.
Noteworthy also is that this shift in the
1960s occurred in concert with another
major policy change, the establishment of an
official policy of multiculturalism. Certainly,
the establishment of multiculturalism as public
policy in Canada derives historically from the
need to accommodate both French-speaking
and English-speaking populations in this “bi-
lingual, bi-cultural” nation, and beyond this to
work to accommodate the interests of native
“First Nations” groups. In a sense, then, the
ability of Canada, or of a Canadian city such
asVancouver, to work to accommodate newly