About " The Past and future of immigration to Canada" by David Verbeeten

the objective of this post is to identify the main idea of the reading "The past and future of immigration to Canada" by David Verbeeten; and then number three of the arguments the author used.

Following the order of this statement, the main idea of the text is to indicate how the immigrants have been an important factor in the economy of Canada; and how the migratory policies of that country have changed through years in order to allow the entrance of the propotypes that are in accordance to what they need at that time. But not only the immigration influeces the economy; also the emmigration, because Canada has suffer from a big loss of professionals who left to other countries, such as United States. Finally, it leaves the doubt of the future of migration in Canada, which is unpredictably at the moment.

To feed this idea, the author states that "Over the course of four decades—decades
which were otherwise politically formative for the Dominion—the population of
Canada actually expanded at a rate below that of natural increase. Immigration only
began to contribute significantly to population growth after 1901. For much, if not
most, of its formative history, Canada was not a country of immigrants, but rather a
country of emigrants or transients". This means that Canadians at the begginings were looking for better opportunities elsewhere, and the migration rates where low; leaving Canada as a country merely agricultural, and only developing in one or two cities.

Then, after the Economic Boom in the XX century, the rates of immigration increased and now the government was forced to change the policies, to make them moer selective and restrictive, so these preferred the entrance of protestants and white people. But in the interwar period they were accused of discrimation, so they based their policies on a system of points and more objective.

This change affected the economy in a way that immigrants were more prepared but they were not willing to stay for a long time in the country, meanwhile the nationals professionals of the country were leaving mostly to the Unied States in the search for lower taxes and better salaries. However, there was work-force enough to continue growing.

finally the author states that the immigration rates beagan to get affected by the brain drain of professionals, leaving a country full of age people and low birth rates; and also, immigrants stoped looking at CAnada as a destination to migrate. All of this carries a series of social problems. The author says: "In the context of worldwide
aging and decline, Canada may find itself in a strengthened or weakened position. In
the event that developing societies are destabilized by severe imbalances in their
demographic distributions, Canada may once again become a destination of choice
for the skilled and educated workers of these societies as they seek to relocate"

In my opinion, Canada is a country with a lot of potential to be a destiny for migration, but the only main issue that stops this to happen is the lack of openness to immigrants, in a way that offers them more social securities and more facilities to stay there, have a family and improve the economy of the cuntry.

Expatriates are the same as migrants, right?.... NO!

In a general definition, and according to the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrants, "The term 'migrant' in article 1.1 (a) should be understood as covering all cases where the decision to migrate is taken freely by the individual concerned, for reasons of 'personal convenience' and without intervention of an external compelling factor."1 Sometimes this term is used in a pejorative sence, since most migrants are people coming to big states, such the United States, in order to reach a better life, through a better paid job.

On the other hand, Expatriate is mostly refered to "A person who has citizenship in at least one country, but who is living in another country. Most expatriates only stay in the foreign country for a certain period of time, and plan to return to their home country eventually, although there are some who never return to their country of citizenship"2 In this sense, many people use "expatriate" when refering to those people who enjoy traveling and are adventorous, so they go from one country to another looking for experience.

Keeping up with the first debate, why is it a discriminative separation of these two words? Actually tradition is the one who has stablished this difference, because from many years ago migrants are labeled as desperate and unsophisticated people that have the need to go to a different country and start over again. Meanwhile, expatriates are albeled just leave their home country to improve skills or for pleasure. Therefore, it is important to note that the use of these terms in a differentiated way is not something intentional; just usual by traditional language.

Finally, the point of writing this post is not to create a strong debate or make a referendum over who is right or wrong, and why. But to bring out the common definition of these words, very usual in our daily life; specially now that we live a every-day-more-globalized world.


References:

1. Measures to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers. 1998. Report of the working group of intergovernmental experts on the human rights of migrants submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1997/15. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fifty-fourth session, Intergovernmental working group of experts on the human rights of migrants.

2. Business dictionary.com (2010). Retrieved on February 25th, 2010, on: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/expatriate.html

Corporations as an influence in culture

Before the industrial revolution, handlaboring was considered an art that created customized artefacts for each of the real needs of the people. Then, when machinery and technology improved the productive activity, the handycrafter became a worker of a big plant, which produced in massive quantities, and who now was required to follow a schedule and accomplish a specific goal.
It didn't took too long until those big factories came to Colombia, and changed the daily life of its nationals. Big corporations, now-a-days, could and do change a culture: with its policies and its corporate culture, which eventually have an influence in people's customes.
Taking the example of Colombia; this culture has always been very family centered, so people procured to be home early in order to spend some time with their relatives. However, this corporations brought with them, besides great technology and techniques, a whole new set of values (corporate culture) rooted in the industrialized country's culture, who don't care that much about family time; and also a new set of benefits INSIDE and AROUND the company (such as a gym, reading clubs, sports teams, movies...). Therefore, the Colombian workers are getting affected by this, in a sense that now they prefer to spend more time in the company as they feel attracted to all of those benefitss. Sumarizing, big corporations are separating workers from their families, and are trying to create a new "family" with its own values, culture and customes.

Culture vs. Organizational Culture

Culture could be defined as the group of beliefs, values, experiences, religion, attitudes, roles, material objects, notion of time, and many more aspects learned and adopted by an individual or by a group of persons throgh time and generations. Therefore, culture could be as well a major influence in the personality of the ones who adopt it.
Given that, it is not hard to define organizational culture, since it makes the personality of an organization. Better explained, organizational culture is the values, norms, attitudes, beliefs and experiences shared by the members of an organization, and influencing the way they interact between each other.
With this said, it is possible to conclude that organizational culture is the culture of an organization (although it is a little obvious).