What do sponsored parents and grandparents contribute?
VanderPlaat, Madine ; Ramos, Howard ; Yoshida, Yoko 等
Abstract
Canada increasingly favours immigration policies based on human
capital theory and economic outcomes. Consequently, while immigration is
on the increase there is a downward trend in the number of "family
class" entrants admitted to the country. The group most seriously
affected is sponsored parents and/or grandparents who are also the most
vulnerable to criticisms against family class immigration. The
discussion is centered on the perceived lack of potential economic
contributions of these immigrants. Such a focus, however, overlooks the
feminized nature of this type of immigration and the many non-economic
contributions these immigrants make. Using multinomial regression
modeling of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada data, we
examine economic and non-economic contributions of sponsored parent
and/or grandparent immigrants and compare them to immigrants of similar
age migrating under other categories of immigration. We find that
sponsored parents and/or grandparents make significant economic
contributions to Canadian society as well as other non-economic ones
that are often overlooked. We also find that their contributions
increase over time and are heavily gendered, with female sponsored
parents and/or grandparents making more non-economic contributions than
their male counterparts or other immigrants of similar age migrating
under other categories of immigration.
Resume
Le Canada favorise de plus en plus les politiques
d'immigration qui sont fondees sur la theorie du capital humain et
sur ses retombees economiques. Par consequent, alors que cette
immigration est a la hausse, il y a neanmoins une tendance a la baisse
du nombre d'entrees obtenues a partir du <<regroupement
familial>>. Le groupe le plus serieusement touche est celui des
parents et / ou grands-parents parraines, qui sont aussi les plus
vulnerables face aux critiques contre cette categorie. La discussion est
centree sur le manque percu de contributions economiques potentielles
qu'ils peuvent apporter. Une telle approche, cependant, neglige la
nature feminisee de ce type d'immigration et leurs nombreuses
prestations non monetaires. En utilisant un modele de regression
multinominale de l'Enquete Iongitudinale aupres des immigrants au
Canada, nous examinons ces apports et nous les comparons a ceux
d'autres immigres d'un age similaire et provenant
d'autres categories. Nous constatons que les parents et / ou
grands-parents parraines font d'importantes contributions
economiques a la societe canadienne, ainsi que des non-economiques qui
sont souvent negligees. Nous constatons egalement qu'au til du
temps leurs prestations augmentent et sont fortement sexuees, les temmes
en faisant plus au niveau non monetaire que leurs homologues masculins
et que les immigres d'un age similaire venus par l'entremise
d'autres categories d'immigration.
INTRODUCTION
Family migration has been the lifeblood of migration throughout the
world (Daniel 2005; Kofman 2004). Recognizing the importance of the
family to immigrant settlement and integration, most receiving countries
have implemented relatively generous family reunification policies which
allow for the sponsorship of relatives who did not accompany the
original migrant at the time of immigration. Canada has been no
exception (CIC 2000; Daniel 2005; Deshaw 2006). However, in recent years
Canada has increasingly favoured a selection process informed by human
capital theory privileging those with skills, paid work experience, and
high potential for economic adaptability. Consequently, while
immigration itself is on the increase, there is a downward trend in the
number of family class entrants admitted to the country (Baker and
Benjamin 2002; McLaren and Black 2005; Triadafilopoulos 2006) with over
10,000 fewer entrants in 2010 than admitted in 2006 (CIC 2010). Once one
of the largest sources of immigration, family class migration for
reunification now accounts for only slightly over 20% of annual
immigrant intake in Canada (CIC 2010; Daniel 2005). Sponsored parents
and/or grandparents are the most vulnerable to criticisms that call into
question the value of family class immigration and hence, are
particularly susceptible to cutbacks. As Immigration Minister Jason
Kenney noted, "... there have to be practical limits to our
generosity. We have to calibrate ... limits based on our country's
economic needs, our fiscal capacity. There is no doubt that the people
who are coming who are senior citizens, they have much, much lower
labour-market participation and much higher levels of utilization of the
public health system" (Gunter 2011). Yet, there is little empirical
evidence to justify such sentiments and the policies they drive.
Consequently, it is this group within the family class that provides the
focal point for our discussion.
The basis upon which Canada selects its immigrants and the
appropriate balance between family class immigrants, economic immigrants
(skilled workers) and refugees is an important issue in the development
of Canada's immigration policies. However, in discussions on what
Canada's rationale for immigration should be, the focus in recent
years has been almost exclusively on skilled workers and the growth of
the temporary worker category with a heavy emphasis on tracking economic
indicators of integration such as employment and income in the case of
the former and meeting acute labour shortages in the case of the latter.
Very little attention has been paid to the integration experiences of
family class immigrants, except to note their relatively poorer economic
performance (Frances 2002; Stoffman 2002; Borjas 1999). Consequently,
the value of family class immigration has not been addressed and any
discussion on the balance of different immigrant categories is severely
hampered by the absence of analysis of empirical data establishing the
validity of different arguments (Rumbaut 1997).
While some of the existing literature focuses on the value of
family reunification policies in principle, very little research
examines the integration experiences of sponsored family members in
general or specific categories of family such as parents and/or
grandparents. The reason for this gap is in part due to the perceived
marginal (and gendered) nature of the subject matter. Family immigration
may be of less interest because of its connection to the social,
feminine, private sphere rather than the economic sphere (Kofman 2004;
Rumbaut 1997). Accompanying family members (sponsored or otherwise) are
also not screened on human capital variables and are not required or
expected to possess the same levels of human capital brought by
principal economic class applicants. Little attention has been given to
developing models to ascertain the non-economic contributions made by
newcomers to Canada, or to develop more appropriate models for measuring
non-standard economic contributions. Consequently, the integration
outcomes of family class immigrants have not been measured in any
meaningful way beyond the standard income indicators which dominate the
field of immigration studies (e.g., Li 2003a, 2003b; Smith 2004).
Studies that do look at the integration outcomes for family class
immigrants tend to be qualitative in nature, based on case study designs
(VanderPlaat 2007). These studies are rich in interpretive data, and
provide considerable insight to the potential contributions of family
class immigrants, particularly parents and/or grandparents, within the
family unit as well as the community. However, such studies are usually
not conducted for the express purpose of measuring non-economic outcomes
or developing a meaningful model for measuring the economic and
noneconomic contributions of parents and/or grandparents. Most
important, qualitative studies focusing on family class immigrants have
not been conducted in conjunction with, or successfully linked to large
scale quantitative data, limiting their capacity to be policy
informative. Consequently, arguments for and against family
reunification tend to be highly subjective and rarely appeal to solid
broad-based research.
The identification of these problems, both theoretical and
methodological, does not produce an obvious solution. As one analyses
the sparse literature on family class immigrants, it is apparent that
the issue is a highly complex one, easily subject to "leaps of
logic" and misinterpretation of data. (1) Yet, the need to
understand the role of the family in the immigration experience is
considered critical (Arat-Koc 2006; Ellis and Wright 2005; Kustec 2006;
Jasso 1997; Nauck and Settles 2001; Rumbaut 1997). The objectives of
this paper are therefore twofold: First, using data from the
Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants in Canada (LSIC), it explores the
basic quantitative data on sponsored parents and/or grandparents to
inform the discussion about what their potential contributions to
Canadian society may be and how these may be more fully explored.
Second, the paper considers what factors influence different potential
outcomes of sponsored parents and/or grandparents compared to other
immigrants of similar age migrating under other categories of
immigration. We will accomplish these goals by first providing an
overview of the different perspectives on family reunification policies.
We then introduce potential contributions that sponsored parents and/or
grandparents make. Last, we test what factors influence different
contributions of sponsored parents and/or grandparents.
COMPETING DISCOURSES
In very simplistic terms the discussion on the value of sponsoring
parents and/or grandparents takes place between those who advocate a
humanitarian rationale for family reunification versus those who argue
against such policies from an economic perspective. As such, the debate
remains at the level of values and beliefs instead of substantive
arguments. The key issue is which perspective should dictate
Canada's position on family immigration. Both readily dismiss the
other without actually addressing the specific arguments being
presented.
The position opposing large scale family reunification policies is
based on an economic imperative that contends that while families may be
good for the well-being of individuals, family class immigration may not
be in the best economic interests of the state (Avci 1999; Borjas 1999;
Collacott 2002, 2006; Frances 2002; Grubel 2005). In particular,
sponsored parents and/or grandparents are viewed as potential
"burdens" on Canadian society, by virtue of their diminished
capacity for economic contributions and increased potential for
stressing the social welfare and healthcare systems (Stoffman 2002).
The humanitarian position, by contrast, derives its moral
imperative from Canada's commitment to a number of international
conventions that recognize migrants' rights to join or be joined by
their families. Proponents of this position include settlement sector
NGO's, immigrant advocacy groups and social justice organizations
among others. The humanitarian position often also argues that not only
is access to family a right, it is also fundamental for the social,
physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of newcomer populations
(Canadian Council for Refugees 2004; Deshaw 2006; KAIROS 2005; OCASI
2005).
As Daniel (2005) notes, in its current state much of the debate
between the altruistic humanitarian position and the more instrumental
economic perspective is not particularly useful because it lacks a
common ground for argumentation. A more fruitful platform for discussion
is presented by those who argue that the notions of
"contribution" and "burden" are inappropriately
defined by the dominant economic and human capital constructions of
integration (Lewis-Watts 2006; Li 2003a, 2003b; McLaren 2006) and there
exists a strong body of feminist scholarship in support of this argument
(Creese et. al. 2008; Creese et. al. 2011; Neysmith et. al. 2010). It is
thus important to critically examine how the integration experiences of
sponsored relatives, including parents and/or grandparents, should be
interpreted and understood.
Researchers from this perspective argue that not only is the family
good for the well-being of the individual, it is good for society as a
whole because access to family relationships and networks can support
and mitigate the settlement and integration process (Dench 2006; Deshaw
2006; Khoo 2003; Kofman 2004; Li 2003a; Pratt 2006). By providing child
care and/or labour to family owned businesses, sponsored parents and/or
grandparents can contribute to the overall economic well-being of the
family and support the educational pursuits and labour market activities
of other family members. Through volunteerism, informal networking and
kinship work, sponsored parents and/or grandparents can also contribute
to community cohesion and social capital formation which can be
particularly important in the absence of more formal support systems and
settlement services (Lewis-Watts 2006; Telegdi 2006). As Anderson (2001)
points out, in some cultures grandparents also play an important
intermediary role in intergenerational conflicts. In addition, the
possibility of sponsoring relatives may be an important element in
attracting and retaining immigrants (Deshaw 2006; Khoo 2003). (2)
The problem with the alternative contribution discourse is that
what "may" or "could" happen is more or less based
on speculation rather than concrete evidence. While the assumptions
posited make intellectual sense, very little effort has been made to
substantiate them. This is in part because most large-scale national
databases do not differentiate between different types of immigrants,
not to mention family class immigrants. As a result, and in absence of a
well substantiated alternative discourse, the "integration" of
family class immigrants continues to be narrowly defined by
inappropriately applied economic-related outcomes.
It is important, however, to state that the development of an
alternative contribution discourse should not dismiss economic
indicators as an integration outcome for sponsored parents and/or
grandparents. At issue is the establishment of appropriate economic
indicators for parents and/or grandparents, indicators which, we argue,
recognize the importance of the family unit in assessing integration
outcomes. For example, analyses of earnings or income-tax returns hide
the in-kind support parents and/or grandparents may be giving their
families and communities. Likewise, the temporary strain on family
wealth produced by sponsorship may have long-term benefits and, as Baker
and Benjamin (2002) and Mogelonsky (1995) would suggest, this may be a
very strategic decision on the part of families.
Our analysis therefore aims to expand the discourse on integration
outcomes by offering preliminary empirical evidence to critically engage
the academic, policy and settlement community in assessing the value of
family class immigration, particularly as it relates to sponsored
parents and/or grandparents.
DATA AND METHODS
To examine different potential contributions of sponsored parents
and/or grandparents, we use Statistics Canada's Longitudinal Survey
of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC). It was first administered in 2001 and
has results for three waves of data--six months, two years, and four
years after immigrants arrive in Canada. It offers unique insight into
the transitions that a cohort of immigrants experienced after migrating
and unlike most surveys, the LSIC contains data on different immigrant
statuses, which allow us to specifically examine family class sponsored
parents and/or grandparents. We begin by conducting tabular and
descriptive analysis and then run multinomial regression models of main
activity (3) (as a proxy of different contributions) on a dummy measure
of parents and/or grandparents (4), controlling for various demographic
factors from wave 1. These include: sex, highest level of education
obtained outside of Canada, work status before arriving to Canada, area
of settlement, ethnicity, official language ability, age, and family
income. (5) Models examine main activity in waves 2 and 3, for all
immigrants 40 years and older, and uses Statistics Canada bootstraps
weights to produce standard errors. We chose to look at older immigrants
because they are more likely to share similar attributes to sponsored
parents and/or grandparents. This analysis is followed by a comparison
of probabilities of main activities in waves 2 and 3, net of controls,
for parents and/or grandparents and other immigrants 40 years and older.
Because our analysis is exploratory, we remain agnostic to the
direction of effects for possible influences of main activity, or
contributions, and are instead interested in seeing which significantly
affect different contributions and whether or not sponsored parents
and/or grandparents have statistically discernible differences in their
main activities compared to other immigrants of comparable age
immigrating through other immigration categories.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
To offer context we begin by examining trends in family class
immigration during the 2000s. As Table 1 shows, the proportion of family
class immigrants to Canada has declined from about 26.6% of immigrants
in 2001 to 21.5% in 2010. The table also shows that since 2001, parent
and grandparent immigrants have not exceeded 10% of all immigrants and
by 2010 they make up just 5.5% of immigrants arriving in Canada.
Although this is a small proportion of total immigrants, this category
of immigrant has been the focus of much contention. As Canada begins to
revamp its immigration system, sponsored parents and/or grandparents are
front and centre. During the fall of 2011, the federal government
announced new and unprecedented visas to make it easier for immigrants
to spend time with their parents and grandparents. Yet, at the same
time, it implemented a two-year moratorium on new applications for
immigration under this category--effectively shutting down this mode of
immigration. Relatedly, many Canadians fear that these immigrants are a
drain on the economy and tax dollars.
This sentiment is reflected in comments by journalist Lorne Gunter
(2011) who stated:
Most of these older immigrants will never work or will work very
little between the time they are admitted and the time of their death.
That also means they will pay very few taxes to contribute toward the
social services they will consume. How is that fair to taxpayers who
have lived and worked here all their lives, or who moved here decades
ago and have contributed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of
tax dollars since? (Edmonton Journal, October 23)
Given the policy changes and strong sentiments echoed by many, one
might be surprised that we are talking about such a relatively small
proportion of immigrants.
When we examine how sponsored parents and/or grandparents stack up
against other immigrants in Table 2, we find that there are a number of
interesting differences between sponsored parents and/or grandparents
and other immigrants. Some differences surely will add fuel to the
fodder of critics, yet others spark the need for further investigation.
Sponsored parents and/or grandparents are more likely to be women, with
less education, less work experience, weaker official language skills,
be less likely to be married, and are older.
Yet, they are not as "elderly" as some might expect and
this could broaden the types of activities they participate in. The
average age of sponsored parents and/or grandparents in the LSIC was
just 60 years old. They are people who are able to continue to make
valuable contributions to Canada and still have years of work potential
ahead of them. The data, moreover, show that they are not living in
poorer conditions than other immigrants. If you look at the family
incomes between the two groups you find a difference of just $475.
Parents and/or grandparents are no more likely to be a drain on the
Canadian social welfare system than other people their age, or other
immigrants.
When we examine the main activities of sponsored parents and/or
grandparents further, in Table 3, and compare them against other
immigrants who are 40 years and older, we find that, as a whole,
sponsored parents and/or grandparents are less likely to be working than
other immigrants. However, at the same time, sponsored parents and/or
grandparents are making a number of important contributions that are
often missed in critiques against their immigration. Just after
arriving, less than 30% of these immigrants reported being retired,
which is what many would expect. However, the other two thirds of these
immigrants were either working or self-employed or homemaking. As a
result, the majority of sponsored parents and/or grandparents engage in
activities that contribute to the Canadian economy and society.
When the same data are examined in the second wave of the LSIC, two
years after landing in Canada, the results look somewhat different.
After two years in Canada, about the same percent of sponsored parents
and/or grandparents reported being retired, the proportion working
increased to 40.8%, while the proportion homemaking decreased to 12.8%
(in part because the second wave began asking about caring for family
separately), and caring for family accounted for 14.8% of sponsored
parents and/or grandparents' main activities. The roughly 13
percentage point increase in working is a very interesting finding in
light of the fact that this population is now two years older.
When the data are examined at the third wave of the LSIC, four
years after landing in Canada, about the same proportion of sponsored
parents and/or grandparents remain retired, roughly 39% are working or
self-employed, just under 14% are homemaking, and about 14% are caring
for family. In other words, only a third of these immigrants are retired
and the other two thirds are making important contributions to the
Canadian economy and their families--not the story we hear from critics
of family class migration.
To explore the data even further, we ask if there are any
determinants of the different contributions of sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and additionally ask whether or not their contributions are
significantly different from other immigrants of comparable age entering
the country through other immigrant categories. If there are systemic
correlates with different outcomes and differences among immigrant
categories, this should be of interest to academics and policymakers
alike. It is our aim to offer a preliminary snap shot of what these
immigrants contribute, and why they do so, to potentially advance the
debate on family class immigrants and sponsored parents and/or
grandparents.
To explore these questions, we conduct a series of multinomial
regression models, examining the effect of being a sponsored parent
and/or grandparent on main activity, controlling for a series of other
measures. In Table 4, we look at main activity in wave 2 regressed on
being a parent and/or grandparent and other controls from wave 1. The
reference category for main activity is retired. As we look at the
constants across outcomes of main activity (Y=I through Y=3), we see
that generally immigrants in the sample, sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and those 40 years or older, are far more likely to be
working than retired. The same is the case of homemaking/caring for
family and other activity. The story changes slightly when we look
specifically at sponsored parents and/or grandparents. The outcome of
working as a main activity (Y=1) shows that compared to other immigrants
40 years and older, they are slightly less likely to engage in working.
The same is the case for the other two main activities analyzed in
models Y=2 and Y=3. However, the effect of being a sponsored parent
and/or grandparent on working is not statistically significant. When we
examine what determines whether or not sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and other immigrants 40 years and older are working, we see
that only less than high school education, South Asian ethnicity, and
age make a statistically discernible impact. In the case of lowest
education category and being South Asian, they increase the likelihood
of working and in the case of age, older age decreases the effect on
working. When we look at homemaking/caring for family (Y=2), we see that
more factors affect whether or not sponsored parents and/or grandparents
and other immigrants 40 years and older engage in homemaking or caring
for family as their main activity. In fact, being a woman and having
less than high school education have a statistically significant effect
in increasing doing this as a main activity, previous full-time work
decreases this activity, as does age. With respect to other activity
(Y=3), only age has a negative impact on these activities.
In Table 5, we examine the same relationships, but this time look
at data on main activity from wave 3. Like results from wave 2 data,
main activity outcomes (Y=1 through Y=4) show that for sponsored parents
and/or grandparents and other immigrants 40 years and older, they are
more likely to be working, homemaking, caring for family, or doing an
other activity than being retired. Again, the story changes slightly
when we look specifically at sponsored parents and/or grandparents
compared to other immigrants 40 years and older. Here we again see that
for all activities, sponsored parents and/or grandparents are less
likely to engage in them compared to being retired, while also comparing
them to other immigrants. Yet, these differences are not statistically
significant for working or caring for family. When we examine what
accounts for working as main activity (Y=l), we find that being a woman
decreases the likelihood of doing this activity, as does being older.
All other controls were not statistically significant. We find that
being a woman increases homemaking (Y=2) as a main activity, and age
decreases it. Caring for family (Y=3) offers a more complex set of
relationships, with being a woman increasing caring for a family as a
main activity, some post-secondary and university or higher education
decreasing it, being South Asian increasing it, and age decreasing it.
With other activities (Y=4), we see that being married decreases these
activities, as does age.
The models presented in Tables 4 and 5 offer an interesting and
mixed story about what sponsored parents and/or grandparents contribute.
They show that generally retirement is likely to be a main activity of
these immigrants. Models also show that there is no statistically
discernible effect on the difference between sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and other immigrants 40 and older with respect to working
or being self-employed as well as caring for family. They likewise show
that other immigrants are more likely to engage in non-retirement
activities than sponsored parents and/or grandparents. Additionally it
appears that there are important gender differences in activities
reported, with women being more likely to engage in homemaking and
caring for family and less likely to be working or self-employed in the
paid labour force. Older age, as one might expect, is also linked to
decreasing engagement of non-retirement activities.
To examine the difference between main activities of sponsored
parents and/or grandparents and other immigrants 40 years of older
further, we look at predicted probabilities of main activity at wave 2
and wave 3, net of controls in Figures 1 and 2. (6)
Before interpreting the results, we should caution that the
predicted probabilities reported are meant to show the marginal effect
of being a sponsored parent and/or grandparent only. The results do not
take into account potential interactions among sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and other predictors, which should be the focus of future
research. Here we try to only offer a preliminary sketch. In Figure 1,
we see a 13 percentage point difference in the probabilities for
sponsored
\\\ parents and/or grandparents being retired compared to other
immigrants 40 years or older. We also see a 14 percentage point
difference in the probabilities of engaging in other activities between
the two groups. However, at the same time, we find just a 1 percentage
point difference between sponsored parents and/or grandparents and their
probability to work or be self-employed two years after arriving in
Canada. We see the same difference for homemaking or caring for family.
When we examine the same probabilities two years later, in wave 3, we
see that the retirement gap still exists but narrows by 2 percentage
points. The other activity gap also remains but shrinks to just a 6
percentage point difference. With respect to working, there is just a 3
percentage point difference between sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and other immigrants 40 years or older. There is a two
percentage point difference in homemaking, and no difference at all for
caring for family. Counter to common perceptions, sponsored parents
and/or grandparents are overwhelmingly likely to make economic and
non-economic contributions to Canadian society and their families.
CONCLUSION
This paper offers a preliminary examination of what the LSIC can
tell us about the integration experiences of sponsored parents and/or
grandparents and the extent to which there is empirical evidence to
support arguments for and against the broad scale inclusion of this
category of immigrant. Ultimately we hope to be able to contribute to
the development of an informed discourse on the concept of
"contribution" and how integration outcomes are measured. The
evidence at this point is obviously quite limited and more sophisticated
analysis is required to determine the intricacies of how sponsored
parents and/or grandparents contribute to the well-being of immigrant
families and communities. Equally important is the need for data that
will allow us to model how families work together to achieve their
economic, social and cultural goals. Not all of what would be required
to meet this objective is available through the LSIC since the
individual, not the family, is the unit of analysis. However, the LSIC
does have the capacity to produce some basic findings to dispel a few of
the myths attributed to this particular group. Even a basic analysis
such as this provides evidence against two common misconceptions
regarding age and productivity. Sponsored parents and/or grandparents
are not by definition "seniors," nor are they likely to be
retired (a status which does not in and of itself preclude economic and
social contributions).
Moreover, we consistently find, across different main activities,
that female immigrants play an important role in social realms. They
were more likely than their male counterparts to report homemaking and
caring for family as their main activities--all of which have indirect
effects on the economic performance of other immigrants and the wider
Canadian society.
These findings suggest important directions for the type of
research needed to effectively inform debates around family class
immigration. First is the need to recognize immigration, integration and
settlement as a family experience. Family class immigrants are by
definition part of a larger social unit. Hence, arguments based on their
outcomes as individuals, especially those which focus on economic
indicators, are grossly misleading. Researchers working in the area of
women and migration have made the same argument, noting that
women's integration experiences should be measured and understood
within the context of their connectedness to family and household
strategies (Arat-Koc 2006; Creese et al. 2008; Creese et al. 2011;
Hondagneu-Sotelo 1999; Kofman 2004; Neysmith et. al. 2010). We would
contend that the same theoretical framework should be applied to
researching the experiences of parents and grandparents, especially in
light of the gendered nature of our findings. Second, our analysis shows
support for the alternative contributions argument. Sponsored parents
and grandparents are active--especially in the social and cultural
realm. Hence, there is evidence to support the contention that further
research is warranted to establish how sponsored parents and
grandparents are not only contributing to the best interests of the
family but also, through their social and cultural reproductive
activities, to the best interests of the state. Third, in order to make
accurate projections of the contributions of family class migrants, it
will be important to conduct analysis looking at the multiple
intersections and interactions of their experiences.
For now, however, we have taken the first step in offering
empirical evidence to the debate over sponsored parents and/or
grandparents. As some critiques would readily note, they tend to have
less human capital than other immigrants. They come with less education,
have less work experience, have weaker official language skills, be less
likely to be married, and are older than other immigrants arriving
through other categories. But that is only a partial story of who they
are and what they contribute. Sponsored parents and/or grandparents are
not as old as many suspect, they tend to live in similar households as
other immigrants and, as our analysis of their contributions suggest,
they overwhelmingly--two thirds--work or are self-employed, engage in
homemaking, care for family, or engage in other activities. They are
active and they do make important contributions to their families.
REFERENCES
Anderson, P. 2001. "You Don't Belong Here in Germany
..." on the Social Situation of Refugee Children in Germany.
Journal of Refugee Studies 14.2: 187-199.
Arat-Koc, S. 2006. Whose Social Reproduction? Transnational
Motherhood and Challenges to Feminist Political Economy. In Feminist
Political Economy Challenges Neoliberalism, eds. K. Bezanan and M.
Luxton, 75-92. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Avci, G. 1999. Immigrant Categories: The Many Sides of One Coin?
European Journal of Migration and Law 1: 199-213.
Baker, M., and D. Benjamin. 2002. Are Elderly Immigrants a Burden?
Paper prepared for the conference Canadian Immigration Policy for the
21st Century, Kingston, Ontario, October 18-19. http://www.
chass.utoronto.ca/cepa/AreElderly.pdf.
Borjas, G. 1999. Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the
American Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Canadian Council for Refugees. 2004 More than a Nightmare: Delays
in Family Reunification. http://www. ccrweb.ca/nightmare.pdf.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2000. Forging Our Legacy:
Canadian Citizenship and Immigration, 1900-1977.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-6.asp.
--. 2010. Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview: Permanent
Residents and Temporary Foreign Workers and Students.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2010/index.asp.
Collacott, M. 2002. Canada's Immigration Policy: The Need for
Major Reform. Public Policy Sources 64. The Fraser Institute.
http://www.ffaserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/CanadasImmigrationPolicy.pdf.
--. 2006. Family Class Immigration: The Need for Policy Review.
Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring: 90-93.
Creese, G., I. Dyck, and A. T. McLaren. 2008. The
'Flexible' Immigrant? Human Capital Discourse, the Family
Household and Labour Market Strategies. Journal of International
Migration and Integration 9.2: 269-288.
--. 2011. The Problem of 'Human Capital': Gender, Place,
and Immigrant Household Strategies of Reskilling in Vancouver, Canada.
In Gender, Generations and the Family in International Migration, eds.
Albert Kraler, Eleonore Kofman, Martin Kohli and Camille Schmoll,
141-162. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, IMISCOE Series.
Daniel, D. 2005. The Debate on Family Reunification and
Canada's Immigration Act of 1976. The American Review of Canadian
Studies, Winter: 683-703. Dench, J. 2006. Ending the Nightmare: Speeding
Up Refugee Family Reunification. Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens,
Spring: 53-56.
Deshaw, R. 2006. The History of Family Reunification in Canada and
Current Policy. Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring: 9-14.
Ellis, M., and R. Wright. 2005. Assimilation and Differences
Between the Settlement Patterns of Individual Immigrants and hnmigrant
Households. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 102.43: 15325-15330.
Frances, D. 2002. Immigration: The Economic Case. Toronto: Key
Porter Books.
Grubel, H. 2005. Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada:
Growing Conflicts, Constructive Solutions. Public Policy Sources 84. The
Fraser Institute. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.
web/product_files/CanadasImmigrationPolicy.pdf.
Gunter, L. 2011. Sensible Limits to Canadian Generosity. Edmonton
Journal (October 23).
http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.html?id=9d53838a-d4b-4ff2-a75d6114a27bbf4.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. 1999. Introduction: Gender and Contemporary
U.S. Immigration. American Behavioral Scientist 42.4: 565-576.
Jasso, G. 1997. Migration and the Dynamics of Family Phenomena. In
Immigration and the Family: Research and Policy on U.S. Immigrants, eds.
A. Booth, A. C. Crouter and N. Lander, 3-46. Mahwah, NI: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
KAIROS. 2005. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration. http://www.
urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/images/Kairos.pdf.
Khoo, S. 2003. Sponsorship of Relatives for Migration and Immigrant
Settlement Intention. International Migration 41.5: 177-198.
Kofman, E. 2004. Family-related Migration: A Critical Review of
European Studies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30.2: 243-262.
Kustec, S. 2006. Family Versus Individual Immigration: A New
Analytical Perspective. Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring: 17-20.
Lewis-Watts, L. 2006. Speaking with Families From Within the
'Family Class'. Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring:
81-84.
Li, P. 2003a. Destination Canada: Immigration Debates and Issues.
Don Mills, ON: Oxford University.
--. 2003b. Deconstructing Canada's Discourse of Immigrant
Integration. Journal of International Migration and Integration 4.3:
315-333.
McLaren, A. 2006. Parental Sponsorship--Whose Problematic? A
Consideration of South Asian Women's Immigration Experiences in
Vancouver. Vancouver Centre of Excellence Research on Immigration and
Integration in the Metropolis, Working Paper Series, No. 06-08.
McLaren, A.T., and T. L. Black. 2005. Family Class and Immigration
in Canada: Implications for Sponsored Elderly Women. Vancouver Centre
for Excellence: Research on Immigration and Integration in the
Metropolis, Working Paper Series, No. 05-26.
Merali, N. 2006. South Asian Immigration to Canada through Arranged
Marriages: Exploring Challenges for Sponsored Woman. Canadian
Issues/Themes Canadien, Spring: 38-41.
Mogelonsky, M. 1995. Asian-Indian Americans. American Demographics
17.8: 32-39.
Nauck, B., and B. Settles. 2001. Immigrant and Ethnic Minority
Families: An Introduction. Journal of Comparative Family Studies
32.4:461-464.
Neysmith, S. M., M. Reitsma-Street, S. Baker Collins, E. Porter,
and S. Tam. 2010. Provisioning Responsibilities: How Relationships Shape
the Work that Women Do. Canadian Review of Sociology 47.2: 149-170.
OCASI. 2005. Submission to Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration. http://www.ocasi.org/ downloads/OCASI
Family_Reunification_Apr05.pdf.
Oxman-Martinez, J., J. Hanley, and L. Cheung. 2004. Another Look at
the Live-in-Caregivers Program (LCP): An Analysis of an Action Research
Survey Conducted by PINAY, the Quebec Filipino Women's Association
with The Centre for Applied Family Studies.
http://www.im.metropolis.net/research-
policy/research_content/doc/oxman-marinez%20LCEpdf.
Pratt, G. 2006. Separation and Reunification Among Filipino
Families in Vancouver. Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring: 46-49.
Rumbaut, R. G. 1997. Ties That Bind: Immigration and Immigrant
Families in the United States. In Immigration and the Family: Research
and Policy on U.S. Immigrants, eds. A. Booth, A. C. Crouter and N.
Lander, 3-46. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Satzewich, V., and N. Liodakis. 2007. 'Race' and
Ethnicity in Canada: A Critical Introduction. Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
Smith, D. 2004. An 'Untied" Research Agenda for Family
Migration: Loosening the 'Shackles' of the Past. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies 30.2: 263-282.
Statistics Canada. 2005. Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to
Canada: A Portrait of Early Settlement Experiences. Catalogue no.
89-614.
Stoffman, Daniel. 2002. Who Gets In: What's Wrong With
Canada's Immigration Program and How to Fix It. Toronto: Macfarlane
Walter and Ross.
Telegdi, Andrew. 2006. Family Reunification: The Key to Successful
Integration. Canadian Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring: 94-96.
Triadafilopoulos, Phil. 2006. Family Immigration Policy in
Comparative Perspective: Canada and the United States. Canadian
Issues/Themes Canadiens, Spring: 30-33.
VanderPlaat, Madine. 2007. Integration Outcomes for Immigrant Women
in Canada: A Review of the Literature. Ottawa: Integration Branch,
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://www.atlantic.
metropolis.net/index_e.html.
NOTES
(1.) For example, arguments against the sponsoring of parents
and/or grandparents often appeal to data available on immigrant seniors,
an assumed equivalency that has not been validated.
(2.) 47 percent of immigrants who responded to the LSIC in the
first wave indicated an intent to sponsor a family member relative
(Statistics Canada 2005, 5)
(3.) These are based oil em1q049 (wave 1), em2q049x (wave 2) and
em3q049x (wave 3). It should be noted that caring for family members was
not measured in wave 1 but was captured in wave 2. We derive working or
self-employment from the valid skip option. We acknowledge that this is
a rough proxy of potential contributions, noting that theoretically they
may not be mutually exclusive, and that LSIC forces respondents to
choose one option over others; however, we offer these measures as an
empirical starting point to open grounded debate.
(4.) The measure is based on LSIC variable lr1d011.
(5.) Controls, more specifically are measured by: Sex (lr1q008),
Highest level of education (ed1q001), Work experience prior to arrival
(em1q002), Region of destination (hh1d007), lr1g042 (Ethnicity),
Official language (derived from ls1q003 and ls1q04l), Marital status
(derived from lr1q009 and lr2q009), Age (lr1g007), and in2d069x (Family
Income).
(6.) The predicted probabilities presented in Figures 1 and 2 are
based on being either a sponsored parent and/or grandparent or an other
immigrant 40 years and older, net of being male, having a university
degree or higher, having full-time work experience before arrival,
living in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, being European ethnic origin,
having official language abilities, being married, being 60 years old,
and a family income of $23,266.
MADINE VANDERPLAAT is Professor of Sociology at Saint Mary's
University. Her research and publications focus on the health and
well-being of vulnerable populations; citizen participation and
community capacity building; and collaborative research and policy
development.
HOWARD RAMOS is Associate Professor of Sociology at Dalhousie
University. He researches social movements, immigration, Aboriginal
mobilization, human rights and issues of social justice.
YOKO YOSHIDA is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology
and Social Anthropology at Dalhousie University and the Co-Academic
Director of the Atlantic Research Data Centre. Her research interests
include immigration and integration of immigrants in Canada, race and
ethnic relations and social inequality.
TABLE 1. Family Class (%) Immigration 2001-2010
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Spouses and partners 15.7 14.9 17.9 18.8 17.3
Sons and daughters 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2
Parents and grandparents 8.5 9.7 8.8 5.4 4.8
Other 0.8 1 1.1 1 0.8
Family class 26.6 27.2 29.4 26.4 24.2
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Spouses and partners 18 19 17.9 17.4 14.5
Sons and daughters 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
Parents and grandparents 7.9 6.7 6.7 6.8 5.5
Other 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4
Family class 28 28 26.5 25.9 21.5
Source: CIC Facts and Figures 2010: 7
TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics by Parents and/or Grandparents and
Other Immigrants
Parents/ Other
(Values from Wave 1) Grandparents Immigrants
Sex (%)
Male 39.0 57.7
Female 61.0 42.3
Highest education (outside Canada) (%) 5.6
Less than High school 46.7
High school 19.9 10.1
Post Secondary 16.4 20.9
University 17.0 63.4
Work status prior to arrival (%)
Full time 61.9 87.2
Part time or not working 38.1 12.8
Area of settlement (%)
MTV 74.4 73.2
Outside of MTV 25.6 26.8
Ethnicity (%)
European 12.8 19.9
South Asian 43.5 21.5
East/Southeast Asian 31.2 33.5
Other 12.5 25.1
Language (%)
Speaks English or French Well 38.6 82.2
Does not speak an official language well 61.4 17.8
Marital status (%)
Married 75.0 92.4
Not married 25.0 7.6
Age (including all age group) Mean 60.24 32.56
Std. Dev. 8.95 8.92
Family income Mean 23,266.8 23,742.0
Std. Dev. 23,221.1 103,102.2
Weighted N 13,691.0 29,101.9
Proportion 0.32 0.68
TABLE 3. Main Activity (%) by Parents and/or Grandparents
40 Nears and older
Wave 1 Wave 2
Parents/ Other Parents/ Other
Main Activity Grandparents Immigrants Grandparents Immigrants
Working 27.7 57.1 40.8 77.4
Retired 28.9 1.7 27.3 1.7
home making 33.6 15.0 12.8 7.6
Caring for not available 14.8 2.1
family
other 9.8 26.2 4.3 11.1
Weighted N 13,691 29.102 13,691 29.102
40 Nears and older
Wave 3
Parents/ Other
Main Activity Grandparents Immigrants
Working 39.0 82.2
Retired 27.6 1.6
home making 13.9 6.8
Caring for 14.2 3.0
family
other 5.3 6.4
Weighted N 13,691 29.102
TABLE 4. Multinomial Regression of Main Activity at Wave 2, Parents
and/or Grandparents and Immigrants 40 years or older
Y = 1: working
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: Other Immigrants" as
Parent/Grandparents -0.6406 0.440
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female -0.4535 0.290
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.7735 0.358 **
Some Post secondary 0.3092 0.408
University or higher 0.2198 0.381
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full time 0.2417 0.312
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
MTV 0.0434 0.261
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian 0.7178 0.402 *
Southeast Asian 0.0989 0.373
Other 0.1573 0.400
Language: Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well 0.3586 0.253
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married -0.0795 0.337
Age -0.2282 0.022
Family income -0.0000015 0.000
constant 14.4645 1.443 ***
Y = 2: Homemaking/
Caring for Family
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: Other Immigrants" as
Parents/Grandparents -1.0218 0.449 **
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female 1.9495 0.378 ***
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.7380 0.386 *
Some Post secondary 0.1504 0.432
University or higher 0.3432 0.418
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full time -0.9107 0.314 ***
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
MTV 0.6091 0.271 **
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian 0.5445 0.470
Southeast Asian 0.2559 0.431
Other 0.1144 0.457
Language: Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well -0.3221 0.292
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married -0.0052 0.342
Age -0.1304 0.022 ***
Family income -0.0000002 0.000
constant 7.3654 1.469 ***
Y = 3: Other
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: Other Immigrants" as
Parents/Grandparents -1.8102 0.535 ***
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female -0.2017 0.313
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.7879 0.495
Some Post secondary 0.0490 0.497
University or higher 0.2174 0.448
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full time -0.0602 0.373
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
MTV 0.1883 0.300
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian 0.0446 0.484
Southeast Asian -0.4228 0.427
Other 0.3186 0.425
Language: Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well -0.4092 0.317
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married -0.0647 0.428
Age -0.1713 0.027 ***
Family income -0.0000006 0.000
constant 10.7284 1.613 ***
Number of observation 2,130
Population size 42,793
BRR replication 1000
F(42,958) 11.76
Probability >F 0.000
Notes: Analysis includes the respondents who are 40 years or older
Two-tailed test of significance are shown at 0.1 (*), 0.05 (**), and
0.01 (***) alpha level
TABLE 5. Multinomial Regression of Main Activity at Wave 3, Parents
and/or Grandparents and Immigrants 40 years or older
Y = 1: Working
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: "Other Immigrants" as
ref
Parents/Grandparents -0.5706 0.421
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female -0.4917 0.285
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.6637 0.412
Some Post secondary -0.2320 0.434
University or higher 0.0178 0.414
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full-time 0.4292 0.318
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
VTM -0.1864 0.253
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian 0.5178 0.401
Southeast Asian 0.0819 0.363
Other 0.2308 0.405
Language: "Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well 0.3000 0.266
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married -0.0723 0.341
Age -0.2499 0.021 ***
Family income -0.0000019 0.000
constant 15.9159 1.409 ***
Y = 2: Homemaking
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: "Other Immigrants" as
ref
Parents/Grandparents -1.2372 0.465
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female 1.6446 0.395 ***
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.5302 0.462
Some Post secondary -0.6390 0.475
University or higher -0.5597 0.495
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full-time -0.5352 0.342
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
VTM 0.2839 0.306
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian 0.2242 0.513
Southeast Asian -0.0766 0.470
Other 0.4118 0.515
Language: "Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well -0.3651 0.335
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married 0.3689 0.378
Age -0.1297 0.023 ***
Family income -0.0000011 0.000
constant 7.5107 1.561 ***
Y = 3: Caring for
family
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: "Other Immigrants" as
ref
Parents/Grandparents -0.3974 0.505
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female 1.4634 0.426 ***
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.3758 0.465
Some Post secondary -1.3610 0.585 **
University or higher -0.8599 0.518 *
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full-time -0.2695 0.367
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
VTM 0.1841 0.348
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian 1.1647 0.642 *
Southeast Asian 0.8391 0.596
Other 0.5720 0.672
Language: "Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well -0.4049 0.356
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married 0.5275 0.430
Age -0.1460 0.024 ***
Family income -0.0000027 0.000
constant 7.1287 1.736 ***
Y = 4: Other
Y (ref = "Retired") Coef. s.e.
Immigrant Category: "Other Immigrants" as
ref
Parents/Grandparents -1.0897 0.531 **
Sex: "Male" as ref
Female -0.2888 0.344
Highest Education before arrival: "High
school" as ref
Less than High school 0.1586 0.563
Some Post secondary -0.2491 0.545
University or higher 0.1824 0.517
Work status before arrival: "Part-time/Not
worked" as ref
Working full-time 0.2037 0.403
Area of residence: "outside of MTV" as ref
VTM -0.0129 0.322
Ethnicity Category: "European" as ref
South Asian -0.1209 0.535
Southeast Asian -0.2296 0.447
Other 0.7143 0.483
Language: "Does not speak an official
language well" as ref
Speaks English or French well -0.5005 0.332
Marital status: "Not married" as ref
Married -0.6842 0.413 *
Age -0.1542 0.027 ***
Family income -0.0000150 0.000 *
constant 10.3074 1.567 ***
Number of observation 2.130
Population size 42,793
BRR replication 1000
F(56.944) 9.07
Probability >F 0.000
Notes: Analysis include, the respondents who are 40 years or older
Two-tailed test of significance are shown at 0.1 (*). 0.05 (**), and
0.01 (***) alpha level
Fig. 1. Predicted probabilities for main activity at wave 2
Retired Working Home making/ Other
Caring for
family
PGP 28% 63% 2% 6%
Non-PGP 15% 62% 3% 20%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Fig. 2. Predicted probabilities for main activity at wave 3
Retired Working Home making Caring for Other
family
PGP 27% 68% 3% 1% 8%
Non-PGP 16% 63% 5% 1% 14%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
