Search
We have 1 guest online
Home
| When Do Immigration and Language Never Cross Paths? |
|
|
|
| Written by Valerie Bevilacqua | |
| Sunday, 04 May 2008 | |
|
According to the Toronto Star, all immigrants applying to live in Canada as “skilled workers” - even those whose first languages are English or French - could soon be expected to complete an imperative language test, to demonstrate knowledge of the English language: one of Canada’s official languages. Officials claim this potential change in immigrant evaluation will make language assessments more clear. This assumption may render true, because if you really think about it, language is a philosophical and ambiguous matter. Language is constantly changing, including the English language where people constantly formulate new words, and alter the definitions of older ones. So, to create a language test - which is more strict and tests knowledge of the formal and older English language that can be studied from books already written - makes more sense, and is, thereby, easier to evaluate more objectively.However, although a language test would make it easier to see whose English lives up to the Canadian standards, and can establish less communication barriers between both the Canadian citizen and immigrant, there can be certain exceptions made to the rules of this so-called “mandatory” language test. For example, even though this test should be marked thoroughly, it should also be marked fairly and leniently, especially if it is perceived as a harder test, in the eyes of most immigrants. For instance, Toronto lawyer Robin Seligman said the rule would also affect applicants from English-speaking countries who implement the language mark to compensate “for points lost due to their lack of higher education - for example, tradespeople and truck drivers.” I think this should go the same for those immigrants who have learning disabilities, and what not; certain formats of the test should accommodate to those with significantly different needs. If it didn’t, then many would consider that discrimination against those with certain disabilities. In other words, again, the test should be marked fairly and more “easily” to a certain extent, especially since some of us have crucial needs, and all of us have strengths and weaknesses - in this case, what could be various aspects of the English language: grammar, syntax, style, etc. So, objectively speaking, certain questions may be considered for all the English tests, but certain questions from those questions may only be selected for those with disabilities. Another example of this would be immigrants with different jobs. "The language test is counterproductive to what the immigration minister has said she's going to do in the (recent) amendments," said Seligman. “It's not fair to use the same benchmark for applicants in different job categories.” In retrospect, the test shouldn’t reach for too high of a mark, to have immigrants qualify as a skilled immigrant. Unfortunately enough, according to the Toronto Star, “to qualify as a skilled immigrant, an applicant needs at least 67 points out of a possible 100 awarded for education level, work experience and family connections to Canada, among other factors.” But, “in Australia, trades need a lower language test score than non-trades,” which implies, indeed, compared to the likes of Australia and other countries, we wouldn’t be assessing too softly on immigrants, if we made that 67 points a lower, more realistic number to attain. Not only should the physical, animate language test be fairer, but the process involving this language test should be fairer, as well. The language test is not accessible in every state, and scheduling issues could ignite more delays,” says lawyer Alex Stojicevic, chair of the Citizenship and Immigration Section of the Canadian Bar Association. This suggests that we would have to travel all the way to another state to take a language test, if we were immigrating, and what if we failed? There would be no point, plus we would’ve wasted gas, money, and who else knows what. Critics even say “the extra hassle and fees would discourage applicants”…and then there’d be less immigrants, less multiculturalism in this great country. So, if this language test were to pass, it should somehow be available in every state…perhaps, it should be on the internet or phone, which can be accessed anywhere? I also believe that the language test shouldn’t be as different (at least, in a negative way) to the previous immigration process. The fact that an immigrant now may have to go through more or less than an immigrant in the past could end up being an unjust disadvantage to everyone, instead of being reflected as a change that is intended to make for the better. In conclusion, I think this language test could work, but with a few ground rules. We should all keep in mind that tests have to be marked objectively and fairly, especially when it comes to choosing certain questions from all the selected questions for those with disabilities, specific jobs, or other situations. Saying that, they should also be marked more easily, not upholding such a high minimum mark, for others to be qualified as a “skilled immigrant” or such. The test should also be available to everyone, using today’s advanced technology, and maybe that will be the only way that this test will be as close to equal - or as fair. |
|
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 04 May 2008 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|