See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322701968
Immigrant and refugee language policies, programs, and practices in an era of
change: promises, contradictions, and possibilities
Chapter · May 2019
DOI: 10.4324/9781315458298
CITATIONS
READS
9
3,541
2 authors:
Guofang Li
Pramod K. Sah
University of British Columbia - Vancouver
University of British Columbia - Vancouver
96 PUBLICATIONS 1,010 CITATIONS
38 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Behind the model minority mask: Identifying early factors in Cantonese- and Mandarin-speaking children’s divergent literacy and academic trajectories in Canadian
schools View project
Translingual Practices in English-Medium Instruction (EMI) Classrooms in Nepal View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Pramod K. Sah on 15 May 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
27
Immigrant and refugee
language policies, programs,
and practices in an era of change
Promises, contradictions, and possibilities
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
Introduction
The international movement of people seeking a better life is not a new trend but there has
been a dire upturn lately in migration flows globally, especially in Europe. Following the 2014
database of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the world has already hosted
232 million international migrants including legal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Of
these, 16.1 million are forced migrants (refugees and asylum seekers) who are being displaced
due to continued regional conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The number of this one-way traffic is still projected to increase by 5 million in the U.S., 1.17 million
in Canada, 1.02 million in Australia, and 0.9 million in the U.K. in the next five years (UN
Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2015). With the rapid increase in the number of
economic immigrants and displaced people, the industrialized countries are struggling in their
efforts to help migrants settle economically, socio-culturally, and civically.
One of the major challenges for those receiving countries is to design and deliver effective immigrant language policies and programs, which can support the successful integration
of immigrants and refugees into host societies. The development of host language skills is “a
universal, rudimentary approach to the questions of settlement services promoting integration”
(Lanphier & Lukomskyj, 1994, p. 369). Research shows that immigrants’ proficiency in the host
language is critical to both economic and social integration (Boyd & Cao, 2009). Failure in the
acquisition of the host language often complicates immigrants’ entire settlement process, which
sometimes leads to stress, frustration, and mental problems (Beiser & Hou, 2001).
The chapter on immigrants’ language acquisition in the first edition of this handbook
described a range of factors influencing immigrants’ language acquisition, including learner factors (e.g., age, time of arrival, educational level, and gender) and contextual factors (such as the
family context and countries of origin; Li 2013). Immigrant language acquisition is a complex
task that requires effective pedagogies, programs, and policy support. According to IOM (2014),
although 90% of host countries have developed settlement policies that include the essential element of language education to support new immigrants, only 62% of them have implemented
325
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
the policies. Among the countries that have enacted different language skills-oriented programs,
it is found that most of the programs have failed to address immigrants’ needs to learn the target
language; and therefore, they did not improve immigrants’ language proficiency to successfully
transition them into the labor force (Boyd & Cao, 2009).
While much research has focused on immigrant and refugee language policies and programs
in a particular country, few researchers have identified emerging trends and patterns across
language policies that are in place in different host countries. Given the rapid increase in global
migration flow, there is a pressing need to identify these gaps between policies and practices
across different countries. Knowing these missing links helps seek new ways to support immigrants’ target language learning and help integrate these new members into the host society
economically, socio-culturally, and civically. It is to this end this chapter delves into a critical
understanding of the layered relationships between immigrant language policies and programs
and their on-the-ground realities across major receiving countries in the world.
Immigrants’ and refugees’ integration: a status report
Two critical aims of immigrant language policies and programs are economic and sociocultural integration. Economic integration is acquired through a successful admission in the labor
market and is considered the most crucial to newcomers. In fact, integration often begins “at
the economic level, with access to employment, and continues with the learning of norms that
govern the society” (Richard, Maurel, & Berthomiere, 2016, p. 116). Along with economic
integration, almost all settlement policies and language training programs aim at facilitating
interleaving underrepresented minority newcomer groups into the mainstream of society.
Socially, migrants are required to gain proficiency both in the target language and the civics.
Immigrants’ and refugees’ level of proficiency in the target language is significant to their
success in the job market and hence earnings. Reports from several different countries reveal
that newcomers often suffer from a persistent “native-immigrant wage gap” as they usually earn
less than their non-immigrant peers (Boyd & Cao, 2009; Clark & Lindley, 2009). Although
better-educated immigrants are faring better than their less educated immigrant peers, most
immigrants’ pre-migration labor market experience or educational background is often
not “portable” to their post-entry labor market after immigration (Warman, Sweetman, &
Goldmann, 2015). Based on an analysis of immigrants’ earnings in the U.K., Clark & Lindley
(2009) found that typical non-white immigrants who complete their education prior to immigration receive substantially lower earnings and employment than their native peers and the
white immigrants; only immigrants (especially white immigrants) who enter the U.K. for education (with high English proficiency) receive comparable income with their native counterparts. Another study in Canada (Warman, Sweetman, & Goldmann, 2015) found that new
immigrants on average obtain no return to their pre-migration labor experience; and only male
immigrants with substantial English proficiency who also match occupations receive any return
to such experience. Similarly, in the U.S., immigrants are found to work more, earn less, and are
more likely to be in poverty than their native-born peers (Hwang, Xi, & Cao, 2010).
The labor market situation is substantially worse for the refugee populations. In an earlier
report on well-educated refugees in Canada, Krahn et al. (2000) found that despite their high
educational attainment, the refugees under study experience much higher rates of unemployment, part-time employment, and temporary employment than do Canadian-born individuals.
The dire employment situation has not improved in recent years. In the most recent report
released in Canada, among 1,950 government-assisted Syrian refugees who arrived in Metro
Vancouver between 2015 and 2016, only 17% of them had found work by 2017 (Immigrant
326
Immigrant and refugee language policies
Services Society of B.C., 2017). Similar findings of newcomers’ economic integration are also
reported in the U.S. (Capps & Newland, 2015), Australia (Taylor, 2004), and many European
countries (see Seukwa, 2013). In Australia, for example, in their 1999–2000 cohort, unemployment rates six months after arrival were 8% of the Business Skills migrants, 22% of the Skilled
Australia Sponsored, and 71% of the Humanitarian refugee entrants (Taylor, 2004).
In addition to systematic exclusion and discrimination in the labor market, the majority of
the newcomers also found themselves excluded physically, suffering from racial prejudice and
other social exclusion in policies and practices, and hence their host governments’ promises
of integration are often “unfulfilled” (Brown & Scribner, 2014). In a study of newcomers in
Canada, Wayland (2006) found that legal and policy barriers to settlement interconnect and produce systemic discrimination against immigrants, refugees, refugee claimants, and others. As a
result, the settlement experiences of many newcomers are characterized by isolation, vulnerability, and a lack of civic engagement; and many, due to a lack of proficiency in Canada’s official
languages, suffer serious communication barriers that impede access to services, which further
perpetuates social exclusion. Similarly, in other receiving countries such as Australia (Taylor,
2004), the United States (Brown & Scribner, 2014), and many European countries (Seukwa,
2013), newcomers are systematically excluded socially. As a result, many refugees described
their experiences in the host societies as “living in an open prison” (Seukwa, 2013, p. 12).
The status of newcomers’ social and economic integration suggests that proficiency in the
target language is of critical significance to their settlement in the host society. However, as their
experience indicates, successful integration is not merely a matter of language proficiency; other
factors such as education, race, and gender, and immigration policies also interact with the issue
of language proficiency to influence newcomers’ settlement experiences. Immigrant language
policies and programs, therefore, cannot focus on language training alone but need to take into
consideration these other interrelated factors that influence language acquisition and settlement.
Language policies and programs for immigrants and refugees:
promises, contradictions, and constraints
A survey of current language policies and programs in major receiving countries (such as the
U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Spain, Greece, and Portugal) reveals that
despite the increasing heterogeneity in newcomers’ linguistic, socioeconomic, and educational
backgrounds, the policies and programs in all these countries still practice “cosmopolitan monolingualism” (Gramling, 2009). This “cosmopolitan monolingualism” is an assimilation approach
characterized by an exclusive focus on learning destination language and culture while neglecting the language resources that newcomers bring from home countries. The policies and programs also aim for basic skills training for rapid employment and fail to cater to the newcomers’
population, which is heterogeneous in educational levels, employment experiences, host language proficiency, and personal needs.
Monolingual linguistic citizenship for multilingual newcomers
Immigrant integration is a two-way process that involves immigrants accepting the laws and
basic values of the host societies, and host societies respecting immigrants’ identities and dignity
(Niessen & Schibel, 2007). Few countries, however, have treated integration as a two-way
process. Rather, the majority of the countries have interpreted integration as assimilating immigrants into their mainstream society. This assimilation approach sees newcomers’ admissions
as cultural threats, and therefore integration as the process in which newcomers (are obliged
327
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
to) adopt the culture and language of the host society and merge into it at the expense of their
own (Schmidt, 2007). This orthodox model of integration is often conveyed by the pipeline of
immigrant language education and, sometimes, citizenship legislation, i.e., to learn normative
social values to receive the citizenship of the host country.
In Canada, for example, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has had several settlement policies, such as Multiculturalism Policy of Canada, the Employment Equity Act, and the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under these policies, CIC established several English/
French language training programs, such as Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada
(LINC) (which was first introduced in 1992) to facilitate general basic language skills training
in English and French to immigrants in the first few years after entry, and Enhanced Language
Training (ELT) programs, launched by the federal government in 2003 to provide a higher level
of language training for better integration at the workplace. Both programs aim to promote
assimilation to the mainstream Canadian values through its English- and French-only ideology to
achieve a homogeneous linguistic and cultural nationalism (Guo, 2015; Haque & Patrick, 2015;
Waterhouse, 2011). The LINC program’s objective is “to provide basic language instruction to
adult newcomers in one of Canada’s official languages . . . [and help] orient newcomers to the
Canadian way of life” (CIC, 2006, item 6, no page). Subsequently, both teachers and textbooks
in the LINC programs work to help newcomers become Canadian in a multicultural context
by excluding their heritage languages and cultures, seeing them as problematic for integration
(Haque & Patrick, 2015; Waterhouse, 2011). The ELT programs are also found to engage in
such production for the Canadian labor market by focusing on reducing immigrants’ accents,
anglicizing their names and conforming to the image of the ideal Canadian employee in order
to increase their employability without questioning employment discrimination and gender inequality that these immigrants might face (Guo, 2015). Therefore, LINC, ELT, and other similar
immigrant language policies serve to reinforce the marginalization of linguistic and cultural status
of newcomers, as they oblige newcomers to learn the official languages at the expense of their
first languages in order to receive citizenship (Haque & Patrick, 2015).
This monolingual linguistic citizenship is reflected in many immigrant language policies
around the world. Germany, a country that has received large numbers of refugees in recent
years, has been found to practice German monolingualism in its immigration policies, school
language policies, and language policies for adult newcomers (Gramling, 2009). As Gramling
(2009, p. 130) noted,
the threshold of belonging – indeed of a civic presence or “being here” in Germany –
had implicitly shifted from ethnic heritage to linguist practice . . . By speaking German
exclusively in the public sphere, multilingual speakers of migration backgrounds comply
de facto with a set of civic ideals that have become codified in German law and statutory
discourse since the late 1990s.
Similar policies of monolingual linguistic citizenship are also found in other countries such
as Norway (Elstad, Christophersen, & Turmo, 2011), the U.K. (Monaghan, 2015) and the
Netherlands (Vedder & Virta, 2005). For example, the UK Border Agency requires meeting
both “the knowledge of English” and “life in the UK” to become a British citizen (Roberts
et al., 2007). Moreover, in order to reduce immigration, UK Visas and Immigration (2016)
has implemented an A2 English language requirement for the immigrants seeking entry
through the family route. This means one cannot bring their spouse or parents to the U.K.
unless they can speak English. In its recent anti-extremism strategy entitled A Stronger Britain,
Built on Our Values, it is expressed that “to be British is to speak English” (Monaghan, 2015,
328
Immigrant and refugee language policies
p. 1). Similarly, in the Netherlands, it is found that maintaining and developing one’s ethnic
language proficiency, even if this is combined with excellent Dutch language skills, is not
widely accepted. As Vedder & Virta (2005, p. 333) reveal:
[I]t seems likely that indications that immigrants want to maintain their links with their
culture and language are interpreted as a deviation from the desired situation, which leads
those who signal or assume this deviation to push with increasing vigor towards assimilation.
It is evident that while the receiving countries are portraying themselves as pluralistic societies, they
are also skeptical about the newcomers’ languages and cultures and their threat to national security
and unity, resulting in homogeneous linguistic and cultural nationalism that fosters monolingual
“becoming” (Waterhouse, 2011, p. 505). Gramling (2009) calls such monolingualism ideology
and policy against the backdrop of multilingual practices in the societies, the new “cosmopolitan
monolingualism.” It imposes newcomers’ demonstrated proficiency in the destination language as
“the primary bellwether” of their own will to integrate, thus placing the responsibility and blame
on the immigrants themselves (Gramling, 2009, p. 135). However, the success of integration is
dependent not only on receptivity in the local and regional labor market but also social reception.
Such disrespect to newcomers’ languages and identities may “create an atmosphere of fear, hostility, and racism” in both the labor market and social contexts which may, in turn, result in further
economic and social exclusion (Prins & Toso, 2012, p. 447).
Market-oriented immigration policy and basic language
skills training
Economic and social integration barriers to immigrants and refugees, coupled with global economic competition, have motivated many receiving countries to revisit their immigration policies. Globally, many countries such as Canada, the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. are transformed
by a market-driven approach that is increasingly based on short-term labor needs (Alboim &
Cohl, 2012). Several countries such as Canada and Germany made significant changes to their
immigration policies to address their short-term labor market needs and shortages.
Canada, for example, has made drastic changes to its immigration policies in recent years.
These changes are characterized by (1) increasing the economic class of immigrants (highly
educated professionals, skilled trade workers, international students, and investors and entrepreneurs) by increasing the language requirement and point allocation and by requiring mandatory
educational credential assessment; (2) favoring younger immigrants who are more adaptable to
Canadian society and the labor market; and (3) adding stricter conditions for spousal sponsorship
in the family class and the refugee streams (see Alboim & Cohl, 2012).
Similarly, Germany has made major changes to its immigration policies since 2001, such
as simplifying the visa system and allowing highly skilled third-country nationals to work in
Germany, and creating immigrant integration courses to address its labor market needs due to
its rapidly shrinking population (see Süssmuth, 2009). This policy of attracting highly skilled
EU professionals is different from its traditional dependence on large-scale low-skilled laborers from Turkey. In 2016, due to high intake of asylum seekers, Germany passed its first ever
integration law that allows asylum seekers to gain access to the German labor market, with
the government promising 100,000 new working opportunities which are mostly low-paid
workfare jobs (Oltermann, 2016).
Driven by these short-term labor market needs and immigrant policies, language policies and
programs in many host societies are structured under the assumption that successful integration
329
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
is equivalent to rapid employment (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007). Since low-paid jobs require
less language proficiency, many providers, therefore, offer language programs and courses in
low-level functional literacy for fast employment in low-paid positions, typically within six
months after entry (Haque & Patrick, 2015; Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007; Matias, Oliveira, &
Ortiz, 2016). For example, most immigrants in Norway are expected to reach a somewhat
functional level after about 250 hours of instruction. Similar foci on rudimentary skills for lowpaying jobs are found in the Elementary Swedish Language Program for Adult Immigrants in
Sweden, the PanHellenic Project on Greek in Greece, and Portuguese programs in Portugal
that aim to foster basic literacy skills typically after 200 to 300 hours of instruction that enable
them to find employment in low-skill sectors. Others such as Canada, Australia, and Sweden
provide about 500 instructional hours. For example, the Australian government launched the
Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) in 1991 for non-English-speaking immigrants. AMEP
provides 510 hours of foundational English language and settlement skills instruction for newcomers. (The Australian government aims to launch “Revised Business Models for AMEP” in
July 2017, which will provide 440 hours of additional instruction for immigrants who have not
achieved functional English after completing 510 hours of the AMEP program.)
While the focus on basic language skills for short-term market needs is helpful to some participants, it has not benefited most newcomers. Surveys of the programs in different countries
reveal persistent low enrolment and participation rate in many of the programs. A survey of
AMEP in Australia, for instance, shows that only 30% of the total clients completed the 510
hours required training; 7% of them achieved the required level; and 34% of them had zero
English language skills training (Department of Education and Training Australia, 2015). In
Canada’s LINC program, for example, it was found that out of 55,286 participants in 2009, only
19,162 completed the required 500 hours of training (CIC, 2009).
Table 27.1 Examples of employment before and after immigration
Employment in homeland
Employment in Greece
Teacher
Teacher
Pharmacist
Economist
Civil servant
Nurse
Tailor
Veterinarian
Team coach
School principal
Physics teacher
School principal
University professor/dean
Pediatrician
Civil engineer
Mechanical engineer
Choreographer
Musician
Sculptor
Worker
Cleaner
Cleaner
Factory worker
Saleswoman
Maid
Construction worker
Driver
Construction worker
Cleaner
Private employee
Schoolteacher
University associate professor
Pediatrician
Worker
Maid
Worker
Musician
Construction worker
Source: Mattheoudakis, 2005, p. 326.
330
Immigrant and refugee language policies
Further studies exposed several key issues that might contribute to the low participation
and low success rate of these programs. The programs are often based on three assumptions:
(1) the participants are to enter lower end jobs, (2) they are literate in their home languages,
and (3) they can succeed in learning the language in a short period. None of these assumptions match the current economic-driven immigration policies and mass humanitarian efforts
many countries are undertaking. The first assumption, for example, does not address the recent
trends of attracting economic class immigrants for highly skilled jobs in the local labor market. These immigrants are usually university graduates with pre-entry employment experiences
in their countries of origin. They need higher level, job-specific host language skills that match
their pre-entry training to enter matching post-entry employment (Warman, Sweetman, &
Goldman, 2015). However, these levels of host language skills that educated immigrants require
in order to function in their specific disciplines are not included in most language programs that
focus on general language learning. Lack of appropriate language skills that facilitate pre- and
post-immigration occupational match has led to significant status drop or downward mobility
among well-educated immigrants and refugees (see Table 27.1). Lower proficiency in the host
language, compounded by racial discrimination, further pose problems for university graduate
immigrants who are often underemployed (Krahn et al., 2000; Mattheoudakis, 2005).
The second assumption neglects the group of immigrants with no or little prior schooling
who have different language needs from those pre-literate immigrants. Many of the countries
with systematic language policies expect participants to pass language proficiency evaluations
within a very short period of time, generally six months (Matias, Oliveira, & Ortiz, 2016). This
expectation is often unattainable for immigrants with no or little prior schooling, who form a
significantly large group (i.e., in Portugal, 24.8% of adult foreigners have had little or no educational experiences). Consequently, as Matias, Oliveira, & Ortiz (2016) argue, these programs
have not been efficient in enabling the poorest and most marginalized adult immigrants to meet
the requirements, which further limits their access to better-paying jobs or working situations.
With these assumptions, it is therefore not unusual “to find people who have received a
university education in the same class with people who have received little schooling, therefore,
have basic literacy needs” (Roberts et al., 2007, pp. 21–22). The challenge, however, is that
most teachers in these poorly resourced programs are often unprepared to teach students with
such diversity. For example, in the Elementary Swedish Program, it was reported in a 2005
survey that no more than 11% of the approximate 1,600 Swedish teachers for the program
could be considered qualified, which means that they had some teacher training or a university
degree (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007). In Greece, the teachers in the Greek program for adult
immigrants are primarily elementary or secondary school teachers. Roberts et al. (2007) further
point out that these programs are often offered by a variety of agencies ranging from education colleges, government-funded programs, voluntary charity organizations, private schools,
to churches and mosques, which have access to different teacher resources. While many of the
teachers may know how to teach basic literacy, many have not received training to teach targeted work-related literacy in a particular sector such as health and social care.
The third assumption is that immigrants can succeed in learning a new language in under six
months. Well-established studies on children’s language acquisition by several leading scholars
such as Cummins (1991) and Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000), conclude that for children, it
usually takes 3–5 years to gain oral proficiency and 4–7 years to develop academic proficiency in
a second language. Many programs, however, are focused on the newcomers and are restricted
to the first few years. Such restrictions can be problematic for some older immigrants, who are
fulfilling family or other obligations during the beginning of their sojourn, and therefore are
deprived of having opportunities to learn the host language (McDonald et al., 2008). In a study
331
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
of timing of language courses for immigrants in six countries (Sweden, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria), Hoehne & Michalowski (2015) reveal that out of their
entire sample collected in 2008 (1,434 respondents of Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds who
immigrated before 1975), only 36% of them ever took a language course. Among those who
took a language course, only 50% of them took a language course within the first six years after
immigration. The finding is not surprising as newcomers, especially low-income, less educated
immigrants, are often oriented to settling their life in the first few years and are often not in a
position to join the language program at the expense of their employment hours. In the case
of the U.K., for example, to encourage immigrants to learn English to boost their employment
opportunities, they started charging (more than £1,000 for an intensive one-year course of
15 hours a week) anyone who was not on Employment and Support Allowance or Jobseeker’s
Allowance benefits. Due to the high cost, there was a 42% drop in the number of migrants able
to access an English language course in the U.K. from 2013–2015 (Monaghan, 2015).
Finally, another complicating factor is the long waiting time for many newcomers to
receive language instruction due to funding cuts, shortage of teachers, and other resources. In
Canada, for example, the waiting time for newcomers to get into LINC and other language
programs ranges from 4 months to 2 years. In the U.K., some providers had waiting lists of up
to 1,000 potential students and had to turn away many newcomers desperate to learn English
(Monaghan, 2015). Since early language instruction can lead to long-term positive economic
return (Hoehne & Michalowski, 2015), this time gap for newcomers’ access to language support in the early years of their immigration will not only have long-term negative effects on
their economic and social integration, but also contradicts the policy intention for fast success
in English for fast employment.
In sum, there are serious contradictions between current market-driven policies and mass
humanitarian efforts and the normative language provision in immigrant and refugee language
programs. The current practices on the ground do not address the diverse needs of the newly
expanded immigrant groups such as the well-educated skilled workers and those with little or
no prior schooling. The language programs intended for literate, low-paid workforce would
not help the host societies achieve their emerging economic, social, or political objectives in the
current global contexts.
Normalized language teaching and structural barriers
Current immigrant language programs’ focus on basic literacy skills not only raises questions
about whom the programs are serving or not serving, but also important ideological questions about whose interests they serve. As discussed earlier, immigrant language policies and
political discourses in the host societies under review are often governed by a “monoglossic
ideology” that values monolingualism and monocentric society while ignoring the linguistic
and cultural properties of newcomers. Immigrants’ lack of English language is often seen as a
deficiency and a breakdown to social cohesion and even national unity (Roberts et al., 2007).
Literacy in the host language, therefore, is framed as “a set of neutral, apolitical skills and
knowledge to be acquired” by immigrants to overcome the deficiencies and fix the breakdown for integration and success in the knowledge economy (Waterhouse, 2011, p. 508).
Driven by the “fast language learning for rapid employment” ethos, many programs and
courses focus on discrete elements that are teachable and testable in a short period of time (Gibb,
2008; Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007). Such a restricted view of language learning limits immigrants’ opportunities for advanced, meaningful language learning and enables them to acquire
only low levels of literacy, thus perpetuating a system that positions them at the political, social,
332
Immigrant and refugee language policies
and economic margins (Gibb, 2008). A survey on Norwegian language teaching for new immigrants, reports that people are most likely to pass the standardized test with as little training as
possible, and language proficiency is not increasing with more hours of teaching (even after 850
hours of training) (Ludvigsen & Ludvigsen, 2012). Moreover, many programs and courses focus
on accent reduction to improve immigrants’ presentability and employability (Guo, 2015).
Language learning, however, is a social process that cannot be separated from the social,
political, and economic culture outside the classroom. In their analysis of two surveys in the
U.K., Dustmann & Fabbri (2003) revealed that English proficiency had a positive impact on job
possibilities and earnings. However, such possibilities—despite the English proficiency—widely
diverge between male and female, and white and non-white immigrants based on their ethnic
origins. Also, the normative model of host language initiates “linguicism.” As Eskay et al. (2012)
demonstrate in their study, the immigrants who came to the U.S. in search of better lives felt
unwanted because of their accents and the color of their skin. Similarly, Latina women immigrants in the U.S. had faced negative experience regarding both professional opportunities and
discrimination at workplaces due to their accents (Davila, 2008).
In addition to racism, gendered structures have significantly marginalized immigrant women
in terms of opportunities for learning the host language, which eventually leads them to lower
socioeconomic situations. For example, according to Boyd & Cao (2009), immigrant women
in Canada are half as likely to know English as immigrant men. This finding aligns with Lindsay
& Almey’s (2006) statistical evaluation of immigrant women’s linguistic capital that 70% of the
immigrant female population were unable to speak English even five years after their arrival in
Canada. Similarly, Boyd & Cao (2009) found the gap of $257 per month in the average wages of
immigrant women and men in Canada. Further, for immigrant women with foreign credentials,
even if they have high language proficiency and matching occupations, they do not receive any
return to their pre-immigration labor market experience, whereas their male counterparts do
(Warman, Sweetman, & Goldman, 2015).
Further, there is also evidence of religious imperialism in the name of language programs. In a
three-year ethnographic study, Chao and Kuntz (2013) delved into church-based ESL programs
for U.S. immigrants. They found that while the programs respect and accept immigrants’ native
languages, they recast and reproduce Christian principles, values, and norms in the program.
Such imposition often requires constant identity negotiation and results in resistance or nonparticipation. For example, one of the immigrants decided to “choose” Christianity over her
Buddhist faith in order to maintain a harmonious relationship with English-speaking Christian
instructors and gain access to power and privilege of being a Christian (Chao & Kuntz, 2013,
p. 47). In contrast, some immigrants withdrew from the programs when they realized that
they could not accept the imposed Christian values in the ESL lessons. Therefore, while the
programs may serve as a welcoming comfort zone for newcomers, they engage in conscious
assimilation into Christian identity.
Recent research on adult immigrant second-language learning has emphasized the importance of addressing these issues of power and inequality in language teaching and learning
(Gibb, 2008; Guo, 2015; Lindberg & Sandwall, 2007). However, by focusing on basic communication skills and treating them as a set of apolitical skills, current language programs
for immigrants often do not address these inequalities associated with language outside the
classroom. Because the instruction is often detached from the sociocultural contexts of use,
immigrants often find they are not useful in meeting their needs. Some, as in Derwing and
Waugh (2012), reported that the language taught in the LINC program was “different” from
that used in the workplace and was “not meeting” their needs (p. 9). Others, such as Guo
(2015), have found that instead of helping immigrants gain critical competence to confront
333
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
linguistic and racial discrimination, the programs reinforce these dominant, normative ideologies through their monoglossic and monocentric practices. For example, in an ESL program
for employment preparation in a western Canadian, immigrant-serving organization, the program instructors and administrators saw immigrants’ accents as a communication problem to
be rectified and their native language and culture (i.e., their non-European sounding names)
as interference to their English learning. Therefore the instructors enforced an “English only”
policy to eliminate the use of the immigrant’s native language component in their program
(Guo, 2015). Hence, through these racialized, hegemonic practices, the language policies and
programs serve to reinforce their marginalized status in the hostile labor market environment.
In sum, despite increasing multilingualism and multiculturalism in the host societies,
immigrants’ ethnic and linguistic pluralism is still not seen as a resource for language learning
or for nation-building as Hornberger (2002) predicted more than a decade ago. Instead, as
the evidence shows, it is increasingly seen as a hindrance to fast language acquisition and
social integration.
Conclusions and implications
More than a decade ago, Hornberger (2002) noted that one language–one nation ideology of
language policy and national identity was still holding tremendous sway despite the increase
of multilingualism. Fifteen years later, it is evident that the status quo has not changed and
many countries still adopt homogeneous language policies. Several countries instrumentally use
immigration and language policies to practice power in their political discourse that reaffirms
the dominance of local citizens and the supremacy of the national language and culture. The
suspension of the U.S. refugee programs and banning entry of individuals from seven Muslimmajority countries ordered by the U.S. President Donald Trump in January 2017 will no doubt
continue to fuel the normative language policies and ideologies.
The analysis of immigrant language policies and programs in North America, Australia, and
Europe reveals a timely recognition of immigrants’ linguistic and socio-political needs for economic and social cohesion as the results are not yet satisfactory. One of the reasons for this failure is derived from a contradiction between policy and political discourses and on-the-ground
practices. While most host countries admit being multilingual and multicultural in writing,
the language policies and practices are “assimilatory” as the dominant communities—guided
by monoglossic ideologies—still want newcomers to conform to the dominant language and
culture. The invisible policy—often in the name of nationalism—not only demotivates the language learning process but also “Others” immigrants’ identities.
In addition to the contradiction between prevalent nationalism and pluralism, this review
also revealed contradictions between current immigration policies and the goals and functions of
existing language programs and courses. The labor market-driven economy and the refugee crises necessitate migration of both highly skilled professionals and refugees and asylum seekers of
diverse backgrounds (i.e., those with little or no schooling experiences). However, the current
programs and courses are striving to serve up literate immigrants for the low-paid job market,
and therefore offer quick preparation for essential literacies. These programs do not meet the
needs of either highly educated newcomer professionals or those pre-literate individuals.
Finally, the standard language ideology and the fast preparation for the low-paid labor market ethos results in a limited view of language as a set of rudimentary skills and an apolitical
stance toward language teaching. As discussed in the previous section, this normative model of
a host language is a prominent barrier, rather than a solution, to labor market integration and
social cohesion as immigrants’ identities are often “marginalized in the name of the substandard
334
Immigrant and refugee language policies
language and cultural traits” (Tomic, 2013, p. 18). The neutralized view of language and language teaching treats immigrants’ home language and culture as deficiencies and problems to be
eliminated, rather than resources, and such a hegemonic view further perpetuates the unequal
power relationships that newcomers experience in the workplace and the society, and therefore
further marginalizes and racializes the new arrivals.
Ibrahim (2006) posits that taking up the “New” linguistic and cultural practices should not
be in opposition to the “Old” culture and language; instead, it must be seen as an additive process that builds on the “Old.” It is, therefore, important to transform deeply rooted homogeneous and assimilatory policy discourses into pluralistic discussions, which will not only stimulate
immigrants’ host language learning but also develop their feeling of ownership or partnership
in the target community.
In contrast to assimilatory integration, contemporary literature is advocating bi(multi)lingual
and multicultural integration that is a dual-directional process characterized by a connection between the economic and sociocultural factors of both sending and receiving countries.
Regarding economic integration—that is, to help newcomers enter the job market—immigrant
language policies and programs should provide specific linguistic skills to enable them to join premigration occupations. Similarly, such policies and programs should recognize native language
and values as resources for sociocultural integration rather than threats. This pluralistic integration
allows immigrants to practice their native language(s) and cultural values, while also learning the
host language and culture. Doing so can be helpful for immigrants to learn the target language
while also keeping their identity alive. Language teaching professionals also need to see their jobs
not merely as language skills instructors but as providers of agency through which newcomers can
learn to work against integration barriers such as racism, gender bias, and linguicism.
Part of transforming language policies and programs is providing sufficient funding.
Historically insufficient levels of financing have caused a backlog for new arrivals to access language courses and hence the mainstream economy. There are urgent needs for advanced level
courses specific to different educational levels of immigrants including less-literates that facilitate
practical work-focused language skills for both existing immigrants to get into jobs matching to
their qualification and newcomers to re-enter their pre-migration occupations. Similar attention
must also attend to timing and access to these courses, especially for vulnerable populations. As
discussed earlier, due to limited course availability many newcomers are unable to participate in
language learning shortly after arrival and sometimes have to self-fund their language courses or
risk missing employment hours. There is a need to allocate enough funding not only for enough
training centers but also to financially support newcomers in need so they can attend the training without losing income. Among this group, immigrant women with low economic capital
or education are most likely to be deprived of opportunities to learn the host language (Kilbride
& Ali, 2010). Funding policies need to address these women’s access to language. For example,
instead of restricting language programs to family bread earners (who are often men), specific
funding should be allocated for women’s language learning. As well, instead of restricting it to a
short time frame, a long-term plan for women who might not be able to take language courses
right away would extend their access to language support (Elstad, Christophersen, & Turmo,
2011). To ensure the programs are accessible to all in need, programs can provide alternative
channels for training (e.g., through distance learning, home tutoring, community-based programs, and even at the workplace). There is a need for policy that guarantees rights of learning
a host language for immigrants of all socioeconomic status, but also provides different levels of
language programs for more advanced learners.
In addition to these elements, the host government should ensure that there are qualified,
well-trained teachers for immigrant language learners. Teachers for this critical role must be
335
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
trained not only in language teaching but also in critical pedagogy so they can equip the students
to read not only “the word” but also “the world” in the new land. Our analysis indicates that
teacher education (as well as their working conditions) for this group remains an under-addressed
and under-researched area. Future work must be devoted to this important area of investigation.
The contradictory discourses in action identified in the language policies and practices around
the world suggest an urgency to “work hard alongside language planners and language users to
fill the ideological and implementational spaces opened up by multilingual language policies”
(Hornberger, 2002, p. 45). Despite the current awakening of nationalism and anti-immigration
sentiment around the world, we share Hornberger’s (2002) and others’ optimism that, as we
continue to deconstruct such discourses and explore possibilities in these spaces, we will shift the
ideologies and transform the power structure within these spaces.
References
Alboim, N., and Cohl, K., 2012. Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies.
Toronto, ON: The Maytree Foundation [online]. Available at: <https://maytree.com/wp-content/
uploads/shaping-the-future.pdf> [Accessed 12 December 2016]
Beiser, M., and Hou, F., 2001. Language acquisition, unemployment and depressive disorder among
Southeast Asian refugees: a 10-year study. Social Science & Medicine, 53, pp. 1321–1334.
Boyd, M., and Cao, X., 2009. Immigrants’ language proficiency, earnings, and language policies. Canadian
Studies in Populations, 36(1–2), pp. 63–86.
Brown, A., and Scribner, T., 2014. Unfulfilled promises, future possibilities: the refugee resettlement system in the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2(2), pp. 101–120.
Capps, R., and Newland, K., 2015. The integration outcomes of U.S. refugees: successes and challenges.
Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
Chao, X., and Kuntz, A., 2013. Church-based ESL program as a figured world: immigrant adult learners,
language, identity, power. Linguistics and Education, 24, pp. 466–478.
CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2006. Major crown projects and horizontal initiatives. Ottawa:
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Available at: <www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/
publications/horizontal-2006.asp#linc> [Accessed 15 November 2016]
CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2009. Language instruction for newcomers to Canada: client profiles
and performance indicators [pdf]. Ottawa: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Available at:
<www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/research-stats/LINC-indicators.pdf> [Accessed 15 November 2016]
Clark, K., and Lindley, J., 2009. Immigrant assimilation pre and post labour market entry: evidence from
the UK labour force survey. Journal of Population Economics, 22(1), pp. 175–198.
Cummins, J., 1991. Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In:
E. Bialystok, ed. Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–89.
Davila, L. T., 2008. Language and opportunity in the “land of opportunity”: Latina immigrants’ reflections
on language learning and professional mobility. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7, pp. 356–370.
Department of Education and Training Australia, 2015. AMEP evaluation [pdf]. Melbourne: Department
of Education and Training Australia. Available at: <https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/
other/amep_evalution_report_-_for_public_release.pdf> [Accessed 23 November 2016]
Derwing, T. M., and Waugh, E., 2012. Language skills and the social integration of Canada’s adult immigrants. Institute for Research on Public Policy Study, 31, pp. 1–35.
Dustmann, C., and Fabbri, F., 2003. Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants
in the UK. The Economic Journal, 113(489), pp. 695–717.
Elstad, E., Christophersen, K., and Turmo, A., 2011. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour
among educators in language education for adult immigrants in Norway. Adult Education Quarterly,
63(1), pp. 78–96.
Eskay, M. K., Onu, V. C., Obiyo, N. O., Igbo, J. N., and Udaya, J., 2012. Surviving as foreign-born
immigrants in America’s higher education: eight exemplary cases. US-China Education Review, B2, pp.
236–243. Available at: <https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED532153> [Accessed 2 December 2016]
Gibb, T. L., 2008. Bridging Canadian adult second language education and essential skills policies: approach
with caution. Adult Education Quarterly, 58(4), pp. 318–334.
336
Immigrant and refugee language policies
Gramling, D., 2009. The new cosmopolitan monolingualism: on linguistic citizenship in twenty-first century Germany. Teaching German, 42(2), pp. 130–140.
Guo, Y., 2015. Language policies and programs for adult immigrants in Canada: deconstructing discourses
in integration. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 146, pp. 41–51.
Hakuta, K., Butler, G., and Witt, D., 2000. How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? Policy
Report 2000–1. The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Available at:
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=5031AFE9776982931B8677E3D15960A
E?doi=10.1.1.32.2371&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [Accessed 12 December 2016]
Haque, E., and Patrick, D., 2015. Indigenous languages and the racial hierarchisation of language policy in
Canada. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(1), pp. 27–41.
Hoehne, J., and Michalowski, I., 2015. Long-term effects of language course timing on language acquisition and social contacts: Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in western Europe. International Migration
Review, 50(1), pp. 133–162.
Hornberger, N. H., 2002. Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: an ecological
approach. Language Policy, 1, pp. 27–51.
Hwang, S., Xi, J., and Cao, Y., 2010. The conditional relationship between English language proficiency
and earnings among US immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(9), pp. 1620–1647.
Ibrahim, A., 2006. Rethinking displacement, language and culture shock: towards a pedagogy of cultural
translation and negotiation. In: N. Amin and G. J. S. Dei, eds. The poetics of anti-racism. Halifax, Nova
Scotia, Canada: Fernwood, pp. 43–58.
Immigrant Services Society of B.C., 2017. Syrian refugees youth consultation: summary report. Available at:
<http://issbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SUMMARY-REPORT-Syrian-Refugee-YouthConsultation-.pdf> [accessed 12 December 2016]
International Organization for Migration, 2014. Global migration trends: an overview [pdf]. Geneva: International
Organization for Migration. Available at: <http://missingmigrants.iom.int/sites/default/files/documents/
Global_Migration_Trends_PDF_FinalVH_with%20References.pdf> [Accessed 12 November 2016]
Kilbride, K. M., and Ali, M. A., 2010. Striving for voice: language acquisition and Canadian immigrant
women. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(2), pp. 173–189.
Krahn, K., Derwing, T., Mulder, M., and Wilkinson, L., 2000. Education and underemployed: refugee integration into the Canadian labour market. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 1(1), pp. 59–84.
Lanphier, M., and Lukomskyj, O., 1994. Settlement policy in Australia and Canada. In: H. Adelman,
A. Borowski, M. Burstein and L. Foster, eds. Immigration and refugee policy. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, pp. 337–371.
Li, G., 2013. Immigrant language acquisition: an international review. In: S. J. Gold and S. J. Nawyn, eds.
The Routledge international handbook of migration studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 271–282.
Lindberg, I., and Sandwall, K., 2007. Nobody’s darling? Swedish for adult immigrants: a critical perspective. Prospect, 22(3), pp. 79–95.
Lindsay, C., and Almey, M., 2006. Immigrant women. In: Statistics Canada, eds. Women in Canada: a
gender-based statistical report (5th ed.). Ottawa: Statistics Canada, pp. 211–228.
Ludvigsen, A., and Ludvigsen, D. S., 2012. State organized language learning for immigrants in Norway:
a case study of selected local courses. Studies About Languages, 21, pp. 130–140.
Matias, A. R., Oliveira, N., and Ortiz, A., 2016. Implementing training in Portuguese for speakers of other
languages in Portugal: the case of adult immigrants with little or no schooling. Language and Intercultural
Communication, 16(1), pp. 99–116.
Mattheoudakis, M., 2005. Language education of adult immigrants in Greece: current trends and future
developments. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(4), pp. 319–336.
McDonald, L., George, U., Cleghorn, L., and Karenova, K., 2008. An analysis of second language training
programs for older adults across Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Monaghan, F., 2015. Theresa May’s hidden British value-monolingualism. The Conversation [online] 25
March. Available at: <http://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-hidden-british-value-monolingualism39258> [Accessed 17 December 2016]
Niessen, L., and Schibel, Y., 2007. Handbook on integration for policy-makers and practitioners (2nd ed.).
European Commission. Available at: <http://citiesofmigration.ca/elibrary/handbook-on-integrationfor-policy-makers-and-practioners-2nd-ed/> [Accessed 17 December 2016]
Oltermann, P., 2016. Germany unveils integration law for refugees. The Guardian [online] 14 April. Available at:
<www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/germany-unveils-integration-law-for-refugees-migrants>
[Accessed 17 December 2016]
337
Guofang Li and Pramod Kumar Sah
Prins, E., and Toso, B. W., 2012. Receptivity towards immigrants in rural Pennsylvania: perceptions of
adult English as second language providers. Rural Sociology, 77(3), pp. 435–461.
Richard, Y., Maurel, M., and Berthomiere, W., 2016. The integration of immigrants in France: economic
and geographical approach. In: J. Dominguez-Mujica, ed. Global change and human mobility. New York:
Springer, pp. 115–140.
Roberts, C., Cooke, M., Baynham, M., and Simpson, J., 2007. Adult ESOL in the United Kingdom.
Policy and Research. Prospect, 22(3), pp. 18–31.
Schmidt Sr. R., 2007. Comparing federal government immigrant settlement policies in Canada and the
United States. American Review of Canadian Studies, 37(1), pp. 103–122.
Seukwa, L. H., 2013. Integration of refugees into the European education and labour market. Bern: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Süssmuth, R., 2009. The future of migration and integration policy in Germany. Washington, DC: Migration
Policy Institute.
Taylor, J., 2004. Refugees and social exclusion: what the literature says. Migration Action, XXVI, pp. 16–31.
Tomic, P., 2013. The colour of language: accent, devaluation and resistance in Latin American immigrant
lives in Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 45(1–2), pp. 1–21.
UK Visa and Immigration, 2016. A2 English language requirement for the family route. Home Office, United
Kingdom.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015. Trends in international migrant stock: the 2015 revision.
Available at: <www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.
shtml> [Accessed 23 November 2016]
Vedder, P., and Virta, E., 2005. Language, ethnic identity, and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth
in the Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, pp. 317–337.
Warman, C., Sweetman, A., and Goldmann, G., 2015. The portability of new immigrants’ human capital:
language, education, and occupational skills. Canadian Public Policy, 41, pp. 64–79.
Waterhouse, M., 2011. Deleuzian experimentations in Canadian immigrant language education: research,
practice, and policy. Policy Futures in Education, 9(4), pp. 505–517.
Wayland, S. V., 2006. Unsettled: legal and policy barriers for newcomers to Canada [pdf]. Ottawa: Community
Foundations of Canada and the Law Commission of Canada. Available at: <http://canada.metropolis.
net/publications/pdfs/pf_9_ENG_Immigration.pdf> [Accessed 12 December 2016]
338
View publication stats