The family unification program makes part of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada's (CIC) immigration program. The Canadian immigration legislation and policy is always in support of family reunification in which it allows the long-established Canadians and recent immigrants to unite with other members of their families (Neborak, 2013). Families residing abroad and the common-law partners or spouses in Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) can be sponsored to reunite with their family members (Bailie et al., 2006). People sponsored under the family class are common-law partners with the inclusion of the same-sex partner, spouse, dependent children, conjugal partner, children adopted from abroad, grandparents, parents as well other relatives under unique circumstances.
The family unification program is a reflection of Canada's commitment to reuniting family members while acknowledging the importance of the sponsor to remain accountable for the maintenance and care of the new immigrants. The family unification program also permits Canada to continue pursuing the maximum cultural, social, and economic benefits of immigration (Bailie et al., 2006). Moreover, the legislation allows Canada to continue strengthening and enriching its cultural and social fabric while respecting the bilingual, federal, and multicultural factors of the country. In the family class immigration, the sponsor is assessed together with their dependents and the principal applicant. Sponsors ought to show that they are capable of supporting the individuals they are sponsoring for three years and above considering their ages and their relationship to them. A person termed as an eligible sponsor in the program should be a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen, and eighteen years or older. The Canadians residing outside the country are only capable of sponsoring their partners, spouses, and dependent children.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The family reunion became first included in the legislation in the 1976 Immigration Act after it emerged as a distinct class in 1926. The family class' major objective since 1976 was to help reunite permanent residents and Canadian citizens with their close family members from abroad in Canada (GOK, 2014). Reuniting family members remains a fundamental objective and principle of the Canadian immigration legislation and policy. More so, the family unification program also aims to produce both cultural and social benefits without causing any undue expenses to the Canadian public. Both the sponsor and the sponsored are assessed with the prospective sponsoring party needed to submit a joint application. Moreover, the sponsor submits a sponsorship agreement as well as an undertaking signed by both the family members. Sponsors' income is assessed to ascertain whether they receive a minimum income necessary to cater to their financial needs apart from the sponsors of dependent children, spouses, and partners who are exempted. However, these sponsors ought to agree to meet the needs of the individuals they are sponsoring with basic commodities such as clothing, food as well as healthcare needs. Currently, the IRPA, which came into force in 2002, is the key player in ensuring families are reunited.
The undertaking form and the sponsorship agreement are a representation of the legal agreement of the sponsor to financially support the individuals sponsored as well as their family members. The sponsor is considered to be defaulting the agreement for any help the sponsored individual receives within the time-frame of the undertaking, in which he must settle to the respective province (GOK, 2014). Development on the way of operation in 2005, in which Canada’s citizenship minister announced an increase in the grandparents' and parents' permanent resident visas to 18,000 in 2006, shows that the department acknowledges the long procedures involved with accruing these people the services they need. Therefore, it is clear that the client's services are inadequate, especially, due to the long processing hours. Moreover, discrimination in the aspect of the relationship existing between the sponsor and other people causes stress, with the parents and the grandparents suffering a great deal. Nonetheless, rules that exclude members of the family from sponsorship for the mere reason of not declared as part of the family during the immigration of the sponsor are unfair. Moreover, the differential treatment between the biological and the adopted children poses stress to the family members involved.
The low income cut off tends to affect family reunification as people termed as poor are unlikely to meet their family members for the mere reason of being poor. Nonetheless, checking the health condition of a member of the family as a condition towards family reunification shows an aspect of inequality (Bailie et al., 2006). These guidelines concerning income and health are protocols that the Canadian government uses to assess the capability of the sponsor to attend to the needs of the sponsored. However, these aspects may appear as the government is discriminative to the individuals to reunite with their families based on health and income.
The Family Reunification Program's effectiveness in reuniting families is assessed through checking where the sponsored individuals lived upon landing in Canada. It would be termed as successful if the sponsored individual lived with their sponsor even after three years (GOK, 2014). More so, the program's success is determined by evaluating the sponsored individuals' contributions to their families, sponsor, and the country. The Family Reunification program's effectiveness in contributing to the social and economic needs of the family is determined by the household income, which they contribute directly through either working full-time or part-time or indirectly by enabling their sponsors to work for extra time. The effectiveness of the program can also be assessed by the cultural and social benefits that accrue from supporting the sponsors to permanently settle in Canada, and teaching their children their cultural heritage.
The success of the program can also be determined by the positive economic outcomes that accrue for the family class. Although the family reunification program's aim is not to provide any economic gains, it is expected to keep any undue costs at a minimum (Bailie et al., 2006). Therefore, the success of the program is depicted by assessing the partners, and spouses that are employed and earning to help with the family expenses to avoid any form of undue costs. Nevertheless, assessing the sponsorship default can give an idea of the sponsors' overreliance on social assistance, which is an indication of a family straining financially, which is against the goals program.
The management of the family reunification program in Canada is responsive and effective. However, aspects such as coordination and communication between inland offices, external partners, and visa offices can affect the implementation and success of the program (GOK, 2014). Moreover, there may exist issues with the program's integrity, especially because of the large group of people involved. Therefore, to have well-coordinated communication, between the inland offices and the overseas including enhancing responses timelines to any form of question political power vis necessary. Therefore, political power that makes the program a priority can positively affect program success (GOK, 2014). Moreover, a strong political ground can work towards attaining integrity in the program to avoid any program misuse and fraudster activities that can hinder the success of the program.
Family Unification Program is to act alongside the Canada Border Services Agency, Immigration Appeal Division, Federal Court of Canada, and the Immigration and Refugee Board. These stakeholders find these program relevant as it acts directly with them in the various sponsorships cases (GOK, 2014). For example, the Immigration Appeal Division will interact directly with the body when deciding on the appeals from the family classes locked out of Canada. Therefore, the policy is acceptable.
References
Bailie, L., Bergeron, J., Boyd, D., Collacott, M., Daniel, P., & Dench, J. (2006). Immigration and Families [Ebook]. British Columbia Social Studies Teachers Association. Retrieved 1 October 2020, from https://www.amssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CITC_Spring06_Families_FINAL-FullVersion-2.pdf .
Government of Canada (GOK). (2014). Evaluation of the Family Reunification Program . Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/family-reunification-program.html
Neborak, J. (2013). Family Reunification? A Critical Analysis of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's 2013 Reforms to the Family Class [Ebook] (pp. 1-22). Retrieved 1 October 2020, from https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/centre-for-immigration-and-settlement/RCIS/publications/workingpapers/2013_8_Neborak_Jacklyn_Family_Reunification_A_Critical_Analysis_of_Citizenship_and_Immigration_Canadas_2013_Reforms_to_the_Family_Class.pdf.
