It’s not the government’s fault, nor that of the refugees, that many have not fully absorbed a new language in a year, the length of the time that the government has indirectly budgeted for. English isn’t an easy language, and what’s more, it’s distant from Arabic. It’s not like the differences between Italian and French, or even German and English.
Women refugees, in particular, run the risk of falling behind. If they stay at home, they are apt to become isolated, and they may not learn much more than rudimentary English or French. They can’t learn a language well if they don’t have jobs and daycare.
The senators found that almost all the Syrian refugees were glad to be in Canada, and to have permanent status here. Still, this is part of the biggest displacement of people since the Second World War, and there’s bound to be some degree of post-traumatic stress syndrome that will further complicate matters, the senators said.
Two thoughts: many of these Syrian families have a lot of children, making it next to impossible for them to shoulder the financial burden of daycare. That, along with the fact that most refugees follow a strict form of Islam which requires women to stay at home and take care of the kids, means you can be sure that more than a few of these women refugees will be "falling behind."There is little likelihood that Syrian refugees to Canada will become an underclass, and there is no need for quasi-permanent subsidies. But more funding to help all refugees break the language barrier would be wise. It’s a sound investment. When new Canadians succeed economically, all Canadians benefit.
Also--why is there "little likelihood that Syrian refugees to Canada will become an underclass"? Doesn't the Muslim experience in places like France and Germany prove otherwise?
It all sounds like the most dangerous sort of wishful thinking to me.
Post a Comment