Thoughts on language passports?

[Machjo]

This is just an initial brainstorm (even I don't know how good or bad of an idea it is right now), but was wondering your thoughts on it:

Canada proposes that the Commonwealth of Nations (aka the British Commonwealth) issue an English Language Passport through the passport offices of its member-states worldwide to anyone who:

1. Obtains a grade of 6.5 on an IELTS test or equivalent;

2. Is under the age of fifteen (in which case the passport expires on his fifteenth birthday, those under the age of fifteen being free to opt for option 1 above to avoid this problem if they wish);

3. Is over the age of seventy;

4. Is issued a note explaining the medical reason (e.g. profound deafness or severe dyslexia, disgraphia, etc.) for which he could not take the IELTS test; or

5. Is seeking refuge from an oppressive regime (Irán for example).

The inside front cover of the passport would explain under which of the categories above the passport was issued. It would also include all of the same information as a standard passport including nationality, but would be valid for only two years at a time, the test having to be taken anew every two years or the age, medical condition, or refugee status being re-examined every two years to re-issue the visa.

Canada would request that the member-states of the Organisation internationale de la francophonie establish a French Language Passport along the same rules as the English Language Passport above but for French.

Canada would also invite the World Esperanto Association to issue an Esperanto Passport through visa offices that it would be authorized to establish and administer itself following the same rules as above but for Esperanto.

Canada would recognize any of these three passports as being equivalent to an open work visa, and would require anyone who is born 5 years after this new law is passed to require either a Canadian passport or one of the language passports above to enter Canada for any reason even if only to transit. Given how easy Esperanto is to learn, there would be no reason to not be able to do this. From a security standpoint, it would ensure that, few exceptions aside (e.g. the young, the elderly, the handicapped, and refugees), everyone entering Canada on any passport other than a Canadian passport speaks one of three languages or at least has an explanation in the inside front cover of his passport as to why he does not know the language of his passport.

This would save Canada's tourist, business, emergency, criminal, and other governmental and non-governmental services at least thousands a year in translation and interpretation services.

As for the concern that it could harm Canada's tourism industry, though that is true, I believe that it would save Canada more money than it would cost it in tourism revenue, again because of how easy Esperanto would be to learn.

To ensure respect for due process while still making it easy to remove persons with these passports from Canada, we could always respect due process but make it an offense for anyone without a Canadian passport to consume alcohol, fornication or commit adultery, gamble, etc.

This way, even if we are not sure such a person was involved in a brawl but can prove that he consumed alcohol, that would be good enough to remove him from Canada. Likewise if we can't prove he engaged on prostitution but can prove that he engaged in sex with someone other than his wife.

Likewise we know gamblers can get into trouble sometimes too, so anyone without a Canadian passport could be removed from Canada for buying a lottery ticket, etc.

I'm not saying waste taxpayer resources to spy on every tourist, but merely that when they're found in a compromising situation, they could be removed for a legitimate reason for having committed a lessor offence that could be proved while still respecting the presumption of his innocence even for the lesser offense.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't quite understand the purpose of this plan? What major problem does this solve?

Also, why would we want to create an international passport? That's not really how passports work. In Canada, you can only get a passport if you're a Canadian citizen. Passports come from sovereign countries not international organizations like the Commonwealth.

[Machjo]

I don't quite understand the purpose of this plan? What major problem does this solve?

Also, why would we want to create an international passport? That's not really how passports work. In Canada, you can only get a passport if you're a Canadian citizen. Passports come from sovereign countries not international organizations like the Commonwealth.

At present, true.

However, what I'm proposing above would solve some problems:

1. Unlike most passports, it provides more linguistic information about the passport holder (what language he knows, if he might be deaf, etc.).

2. If Canada accepted only four different passports, it would make it easier for border guards to become more familiar with them and so make it less likely that they overlook a counterfeit passport.

3. Some compassionate exceptions aside, limiting the entry if foreign nationals to Canada to three linguistic communities (two official and one easy) would reduce translation and interpretation costs at our airports, police stations, courts, prisons, hispitals, 911 services, etc. Etc. Etc. It would also make it more difficult to escape fines and such by pretending to not know the language when your passport says you do know it.

4. Making it more difficult for someone to enter Canada but easier to stay in Canada reduces the likelihood of marriage and other fraud, thus providing yet one more layer of protection to Canadian citizens.

These are some of the advantages that I could see.

[Moonlight Graham]

You want to limit visitors coming into Canada to people who only know 3 languages, one of which only 2 million people in the world speak?!? So Japanese and Germans and Italians can't visit?

[Machjo]

You want to limit visitors coming into Canada to people who only know 3 languages, one of which only 2 million people in the world speak?!? So Japanese and Germans and Italians can't visit?

The strategy I was thinking was as follows:

1. Canada's official languages need no explanation.

2. Beyond that though, the present situation is such that if a foreign tourist is sick, charged with a crime (whether he is innocent or not), calls 911, etc., these various government institutions have to spend much money on translation and interpretation.

I myself participated at a hearing in Montreal at which the judge asked if I would mind not using French so as to limit interpretation between English and Chinese only.

Since I know much Chinese myself, I was surprised to notice some misinterpretations at the hearing, misinterpretation that the judge certainly did not notice unless she knew Chinese herself. Luckily they did not change the essentials, but they could have.

Had I insisted to invoke my Charter right to French, it would have degenerated into a trilingual kangaroo court.

Given the money and errors that multilingualism costs, it therefore makes sense to limit ourselves to few languages, and if we're going to do that, then at least include an easy one in the mix, and that's how Esperanto comes in.

Those who have prejudices against Esperanto would still have the option of learning English or French instead if they have the necessary aptitude to learn them.

Esperanto would just be an easy alternative for those who find English or French too difficult so as to not hurt the travel industry too much without leading to the interpretation and translation teams of today that the taxpayer must finance.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Machjo

[Moonlight Graham]

Esperanto would just be an easy alternative for those who find English or French too difficult so as to not hurt the travel industry too much without leading to the interpretation and translation teams of today that the taxpayer must finance.

This idea wouldn't just hurt Canada's tourism, it would devastate it. Nobody in their right mind is going to bother learning a new language just to visit Canada for a weekend or a week. They'll say "learn a new language? Heck with that I'll just go to Mexico instead". I've never even heard of Esperanto.

[Machjo]

This idea wouldn't just hurt Canada's tourism, it would devastate it. Nobody in their right mind is going to bother learning a new language just to visit Canada for a weekend or a week. They'll say "learn a new language? Heck with that I'll just go to Mexico instead". I've never even heard of Esperanto.

I disagree. Probably over 90% of translators, tourists, students, workers, and permanent residents in Canada speak English or French.

It would barely dent the tourism industry while saving the police, hospitals, immigration, courts, emergency services etc. at least just as much on translation and interpretation.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Machjo

[Machjo]

Add to that that should a language passport also double as a work visa, it could encourage more long-term tourists for example. It would also encourage marriage between Canadians and foreign nationals who know English, French, or at least Esperanto so as to keep Canada's language regime mabageable. The present system increases the likelihood of Canadian citizens who know a foreign language to meet, develop a relationship with, and marry foreign nationals who know none of these languages.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Machjo

[Icebound]

The expense of re-examination every 2 years would be enormous. That's partly why Canadian passports now have gone from 5-year terms to 10-year terms.

You can achieve the same result with a process that is quite a bit simpler (but will be equally unpopular) .

That is: simply enact that Canada's public places will only operate in your 3 suggested languages.... and if you need interpretation beyond that, you will have to bring your own. Visit freely if you wish, but if you get into trouble, too bad... its English, French, Esperanto... We will try you, convict you, jail you or deport you, without you having any say if you don't have the language.

This is not going to fly, of course.... but your proposal has exactly the same effect at a much greater cost, and it is not going to fly either.

But seriously, I think that you are solving a problem that might exist, but not to any HUGE extent... and you would probably create some unintended consequences. For one example, the translation industry is poised to reach $40billion globally in the next few years. With a multilingual populace, Canada is well placed to get a big chunk of that business. Would a funnelling toward 3-languages-only reduce our capability? Would it reduce the world-wide demand?

...

[Argus]

I don't quite understand the purpose of this plan? What major problem does this solve?

It would let his girlfriend work in Canada.

[Argus]

This idea wouldn't just hurt Canada's tourism, it would devastate it.

The tourism industry would be the least of our problems. Under this plan we'd be granting a passport and right to work in Canada to anyone who speaks English or French or who is from an 'oppressive regime" which is, btw, the great majority of the people on earth.

[Moonlight Graham]

Add to that that should a language passport also double as a work visa, it could encourage more long-term tourists for example.

Passports shouldn't be work visas. We don't need foreigners traveling here to take jobs from Canadians, and then leaving with the money to go back home whenever it suits them. We don't need "long-term tourism" either. If you're going to stay in Canada for more than a month or 2 you're going to need some papers. Canada isn't a work-charity destination or place to come chill out for however long you like.

It would let his girlfriend work in Canada.

Yes that's obviously the goal here.

[Machjo]

It would let his girlfriend work in Canada.

No it wouldn't because she knows none of these three languages.

So what would have happened in the hypothetical scenario that this policy were in place before she came to Canada? A few possibilities:

1. I would never have met her, or

2. She would have learnt one of the three languages, obtain the appropriate passport, and then come and visit Canada.

As it stands now, because of her entrepreneurial knowledge, she has already obtained a job offer in Scarborough and one in Ottawa, both to be well-renumerated.

This does not preclude the alternative possibility of opening a restaurant.

She will be getting her work visa in around a month after which she'l opt for one of the options now open to her.

I do love her and am happy to have met her. I also agree that it's only fair that the government, having allowed us to meet on her tourist visa, should now allow her to work here.

As strange as it might sound though, when I look beyond interpersonal relationships towards statecraft, if my policies were in place, she would never have been allowed to come here in the first place without learning at least an easy language, unless we'd met abroad which is not what happened.

If my proposed policy were in place though, it could not have hurt either of us emotionally since we would likely have never met.

[Machjo]

The expense of re-examination every 2 years would be enormous. That's partly why Canadian passports now have gone from 5-year terms to 10-year terms.

True, but it's the passport holder or his government that would pay, so why would it concern us?

An alternative possibility would be to grant a five year passport for those who show a much higher degree of competence in the language (since then we know it will take longer for his language knowledge to degrade. We could even offer a ten year passport to those who demonstrate a mastery of the language, again recognizing that his knowledge of the language cam degrade only so quickly.

You can achieve the same result with a process that is quite a bit simpler (but will be equally unpopular) .

That is: simply enact that Canada's public places will only operate in your 3 suggested languages.... and if you need interpretation beyond that, you will have to bring your own. Visit freely if you wish, but if you get into trouble, too bad... its English, French, Esperanto... We will try you, convict you, jail you or deport you, without you having any say if you don't have the language.

This is not going to fly, of course.... but your proposal has exactly the same effect at a much greater cost, and it is not going to fly either.

Completely different proposals. Mine does not eliminate the right to interpretation to the deaf or those who could not learn the language and certain exemptions. All it does is eliminate the opportunity to come to Canada without appropriate language knowledge with some exceptions.

Yours allows everyone in like now but would then refuse service.

But seriously, I think that you are solving a problem that might exist, but not to any HUGE extent... and you would probably create some unintended consequences. For one example, the translation industry is poised to reach $40billion globally in the next few years. With a multilingual populace, Canada is well placed to get a big chunk of that business. Would a funnelling toward 3-languages-only reduce our capability? Would it reduce the world-wide demand?

Do you want Canada to be a consumer or seller of such services.

Right now Canada is a major consumer of translation and interpretation services.

My proposal would bit prevent multilingual to come to Canada, thus allowing us to sell the service. It would prevent monolinguals from coming, thus reducing our need for the service.

Yes, it's a big industry. And because it's big, we want to be the sellers, not the buyers.

[Machjo]

The tourism industry would be the least of our problems. Under this plan we'd be granting a passport and right to work in Canada to anyone who speaks English or French or who is from an 'oppressive regime" which is, btw, the great majority of the people on earth.

Good point. I did say in the OP that it was a braonstorm. It's always easier to criticize an idea than to offer suggestions for improvement.

So how about we abandon the work visa value of these passports. They would serve like a normal passport, the only difference beine that unlike most passports. You'd now have to meet linguistic, age, nedical, or refugee requirements to get it, so not as easy to obtain as a regular national passport.

Beyond that, make it that they'd still need visas like they do now.

[Machjo]

Passports shouldn't be work visas. We don't need foreigners traveling here to take jobs from Canadians, and then leaving with the money to go back home whenever it suits them. We don't need "long-term tourism" either. If you're going to stay in Canada for more than a month or 2 you're going to need some papers. Canada isn't a work-charity destination or place to come chill out for however long you like.

Yes that's obviously the goal here.

First off, as the situation is now, a Hong Kong resident can come to visit Canada for six months at a time without a visa. So I don't know where you get the two months from.

Plus, given that my fiancée, as trilingual and educated as she is, doesn't know any of the three languages that I'd proposed, how would that proposal help her?

Bear in mind that I would not support it retroactively but only to those who are born after the new law is passed.

[Machjo]

Actually, I just thought of something else on the tourist front.

If Canada ever does adopt a language-passport policy, we can imagine other countries reciprocating. For example. the USA and the UK might decide to no longer accept Canadian passports but instead allow Canadians to apply for an English-language passport and, recognizing that English is difficult to learn and so as to minimize the impact on its tourism industry from Quebec tourists, maybe an Esperanto Passport or a language passport in some other comparatively easy language to learn.

This would likely keep many Quebecers in Canada and so boost the Canadian tourism industry somewhat.

Supposing France likewise reciprocated by refusing to accept Canadian passports and introduced a French-Language passport intead, again alongside an Esperanto Passport or a passport in an equally easy language to learn so as to minimize the impact on its tourism industry, this too could keep many Canadians in Canada so as to boost the Canadian tourism industry.

[Machjo]

It would be foolish to assume that other countries would not retaliate.

[Argus]

No it wouldn't because she knows none of these three languages.

Yes, she would, because she would be fleeing from an oppressive regime.

In any event, your proposal is untenable because it would throw open the doors wide to almost anyone in the world who wanted to come here and work, most of whom would then want to either stay, or take the money they had earned back home.

[Machjo]

Also, high fences make good neighbours. If the only tourists to Canada are those who know one of three languages with few exceptions, Canadians are less likely to run into frustrating language barriers that likely only feed xenophobia.

This could also apply to Canadians running into such language barriers abroad should foreign states reciprocate against Canada.

[Argus]

Good point. I did say in the OP that it was a braonstorm. It's always easier to criticize an idea than to offer suggestions for improvement.

So how about we abandon the work visa value of these passports. They would serve like a normal passport, the only difference beine that unlike most passports. You'd now have to meet linguistic, age, nedical, or refugee requirements to get it, so not as easy to obtain as a regular national passport.

Beyond that, make it that they'd still need visas like they do now.

The thing is you're trying to solve a problem that only you think is a problem. We are already bringing a quarter million immigrants into Canada every year. We also bring in a quarter million or so temporary workers. What exactly is the point of allowing more? What do you expect Canada to gain from this vs what it will lose?

Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus

[Machjo]

The thing is you're trying to solve a problem that only you think is a problem. We are already bringing a quarter million immigrants into Canada every year. We also bring in a quarter million or so temporary workers. What exactly is the point of allowing more? What do you expect Canada to gain from this vs what it will lose?

Wouldn't this policy bring in fewer (or at least fewer of those who don't speak one of three languages), not more?

As for your last qurstion, I'd expect Canada to gain economic efficiency from this. I can only imagine how much the CBSA, the IRB, and Federal courts spends on translation and interpretation for example, and how much more the police, hospitals, 911 lines, etc. Etc. Etc. Also spend on translation and interpretation services at taxpayer expense.

[Machjo]

Yes, she would, because she would be fleeing from an oppressive regime.

You are aware aren't you that a Hong Kong resident can't apply for refugee status in Canada? Have you ever been to Hong Kong. Unlike on the mainland, Hong Kong's human rights are very well protected.

In any event, your proposal is untenable because it would throw open the doors wide to almost anyone in the world who wanted to come here and work, most of whom would then want to either stay, or take the money they had earned back home.

Like I said. Instead of just attacking an idea, why not propose improvements.

Supposing that we still applied the present visa rules, this would mean that it would then be more difficult to come to Canada due to the newly imposed language requirements on top of the present visa rules.

[Argus]

Wouldn't this policy bring in fewer (or at least fewer of those who don't speak one of three languages), not more?

Well, to begin with, you did not make clear you intend to do away with our traditional immigration system. If you do so, and only bring in people who speak English or French (realistically) and only on 2 year passports, then our population will eventually begin to shrink since presumably few, if any of the newcomers will stay. If you intend to allow the newcomers to stay and become regular Canadians then you have a new immigration system which is somewhat similar to our existing one (the Tories did put a high value on language skills), but without any idea of the numbers who will show up.

As for your last qurstion, I'd expect Canada to gain economic efficiency from this. I can only imagine how much the CBSA, the IRB, and Federal courts spends on translation and interpretation for example, and how much more the police, hospitals, 911 lines, etc. Etc. Etc. Also spend on translation and interpretation services at taxpayer expense.

Lots, but 95% of it is translating between English and French, and I don't see that as likely to change.

[Machjo]

Well, to begin with, you did not make clear you intend to do away with our traditional immigration system. If you do so, and only bring in people who speak English or French (realistically) and only on 2 year passports, then our population will eventually begin to shrink since presumably few, if any of the newcomers will stay. If you intend to allow the newcomers to stay and become regular Canadians then you have a new immigration system which is somewhat similar to our existing one (the Tories did put a high value on language skills), but without any idea of the numbers who will show up.Lots, but 95% of it is translating between English and French, and I don't see that as likely to change.

But the other 5% is probably still in the millions at least.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Machjo