Migrants vs. Expatriates

The main difference between migrants and expatriates is that the first group decides to go to another country because of socio-economic reasons; they are tempted by more attractive living conditions and better opportunities for earning money. Generally, migrants are low skill people without a stable employment that see the migration process as a way of success and personal development. In the second case, expatriates are defined as specialized professionals and academics that belong to a company and accept the proposal of going abroad in order to advance their careers, access to better wages and achieve more benefits. This group is characterized for seeking high professional and abilities development, improvements in their job positions and acquire new knowledge basis appropriate for the success of their employer company.

Immigration Opportunities

I consider immigration as a great instrument of progress and success when you do not have enough access to opportunities in your country of origin. Sometimes it is necessary to look for other alternatives in order to achieve personal, familiar and professional goals. In the first case (personal achievement), a person can obtain better experiences in another country with different traditions and cultures and at the same time, can explore new environments that facilitates the development of itself as an individual. In the second case, there are situations in which become better to go outside of our country with the motivation of giving life quality to our families and sometimes start a new live from zero. This is the case of some groups that are obliged to leave because of the pressure generated by the violence and unemployment or because they were displaced of their own homes. Finally, in the ambit of the professional development, immigration appear as a good way of acquire new knowledge, access to job opportunities and learn techniques for the ulterior implementation in the country of origin.

Additionally, it is important to say that immigration does not imply the impossibility of return; a person or a group of individuals can decide to go abroad just for a period of time, take advantage of the opportunity that this new place offers and then go back to the place of birth. In this process, governments should play an active role establishing adequate policies that allow and integrate the new people getting into their societies.

Immigration

Verbeeten, D. (2007). The Past and Future of Immigration to Canada. Int. Migration & Integration DOI 10.1007/s12134-007-0005-0

The Past and Future of Immigration to Canada.

Main Argument

Initially (C.XIX) Canada was not a country of immigrants, it was not considered as an ideal place to immigrate because of the perception that the country was too cold, too remote and too backward. But in the XX century this impression changed and Canada became one of the most favorite places for immigrants of diverse regions of the world and at the same time, it began to accept those varied demographic contours until appropriate them as celebrated aspects of its national identity.


Supportive arguments

- In the 1960s, explicit discrimination on the basis of race or religion was eliminated, to be replaced by criteria (1962) and then a “points system” (1967) which emphasized the skills, education, and training of the independent immigrant, rather than his or her ethnic or confessional background.

- The preference changed for immigrants able to meet the demands of an increasingly urban, post-industrial, and service-sector economy, rather than a rural and agricultural one. The “liberalization” of Canadian immigration policy was, in part, the result of the country’s greater post-Holocaust commitment to equality and human rights.

- After 1930, Canada shut its doors to many potential immigrants, often Jewish refugees, more tightly than did the US. By the end of the decade, around 150,000 immigrants were entering Canada each year, many from Germany and Eastern Europe. The regions from which Canada may in the future seek to recruit more immigrants are mainly represented in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East because they are considered “growth areas”.

The role of corporations

I think today´s video is a very interesting one because sometimes we do not analyze what is behind corporations and the group of people that compose them. The most of the time we just see organizations as a mere group of individuals working together in order to accomplish a specific objective or goal that is oriented to satisfy consumer needs. But in sequence of this, it is also fundamental to take into account the role that companies represent in a society as a part and constructive actor of it. Nowadays, corporations are forgetting to effectively practice this role and are only focusing on a primary interest: PROFITABILITY. They do not have a conscience of moral and human values and do not care either about individuals or about the damages they could cause to the society as a whole; what only matters is the economic power and the strategies that are going to be formulated to achieve the goals.

Fortunately, there exist some members of the society that already noticed this fact and have decided to respond for the consequences that their actions generate. I am referring to the social responsibility as a new tendency that is being adopted by some companies interested in generates confidence, preserves the environment and contributes with the life quality and the society´s well-being.

Organizational Culture vs. Culture

The Organizational culture is a set of values, beliefs, norms, procedures and experiences that configures an organization and acts as the “container” or regulator of all the conducts carried out between its members and the environment. The organizational culture is what identifies and differentiates a company from others as well as the one that determines the way that corporation should behave, think and operate going beyond its structural frame. Additionally, the organizational culture is not considered static or fixed; it changes constantly in order to adapt itself to the external environment and can also represent an important source of social construction inside the company.

In the other side, Culture is the integration of practices, traditions, social habits, values, religion and norms through which the society regulates the conduct of its members. At the same time it is important to say that culture is a way of life and is not equal in every society, it can varies from one community to another and it gives identity to an individual. In comparison with the organizational culture, the culture in its simple form is the one that is in charge of control the society as a whole while the first one works inside a specific group relating cultural variables to organizational ones (strategies, structures, management, personnel) in order to follow the course of the company and achieve the accomplishment of goals.