jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/05/85)
Jim Robinson writes: > In article <2128@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >If the programs even exist; last I heard your provincial government was > >cutting down on the ESL (english as a second language) programs/resources > >in the province. > > Unless they changed the rules all immigrants have to know one of the two > official languages. Thus, I would assume that the ESL program was directed > at the children of immigrants. If indeed ESL is the quicker way of > integrating these children into the mainstream, then it would appear > that cutting back on the program was not one of the brighter moves of > the Socreds. ESL programs are directed at anyone who needs them. My impression is that the majority of participants are adults or young adults (since children tend to pick up english in school anyhow). I had not heard of rules barring immigration without proficiency in one of the two official languages. They are either very new or not enforced because you can take a walk over to east vancouver and find a lot of adults who can't speak a word of english; in fact there was a bit of a row about this during the last provincial (I think) election. John Chapman
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/10/85)
I stand corrected. Certain classes of immigrants are (I think) not required to know at least one of the two official languages, e.g. retired parents of a permanent resident. However, I still believe that *unsponsored* would-be immigrants do have to meet the said language requirement. The reasoning being that people who are expected to earn a living here should not be lacking such a fundamental tool as the ability to converse with the "natives". It would make finding gainful employment rather difficult plus there is no guarantee that the person would ever learn english and/or french thus enabling him to become fully productive. I have no idea what the story is concerning *sponsored* would-be immigrants who are expected to eventually support themselves. Since these people have relatives to fall back on it might be different for them. [Then again, all of the above could be completely 100% wrong - any of you lawyers out there involved in immigration?] J.B. Robinson