Common Sikh names banned under Canada's immigration policy

The rationale on this is kind of ridiculous, not to mention bad PR -- it would be very, very easy to just ask people to append, say, their fathers' names for the purpose of Canadian documentation. Why the necessity of a legal name change?

If you want to come into the country, follow the fucking rules. Nobody has right to emigrate to Canada-so don't bitch if you actually have to make a sacrifice to do so.

Imagine if they decided to just ban the names "Smith" and "Jones" because they are "too common"? That wouldn't be on.

Use a middle name to distinguish people, that's what they're there for.

I know! Why would it even be a big issue if more than one person has the same name if everyone has a different social insurance number? (Surely there are multiple "Michael Smith"s).

2xpost I don't know if you're joking, Bill. But at least I'd think you could understand why Canadians might question the rules we make for people who want to immigrate?

I'm not joking, but on reflection my post looks harsh. And I do agree totally that Canadians can question their government's (admittedly weird in this case) immigration requirements. But I don't think someone trying to get into the country has any right to question those requirements.

why not

do you forfeit all your rights when you decide to immigrate?

They can and should. Why are these two Sikh names in particular being singled out? It's a good question that I would ask if I was an immigrant. It doesn't mean I wouldn't follow the rules, but why should people just shut up and take it? The woman is already there and waiting for her husband. She has no right to ask questions?

Why are these two Sikh names in particular being singled out?

In a tradition that began more than 300 years ago, the name Singh is given to every baptized male and Kaur to every baptized female Sikh.

What do "rights" have to do with it? He has an opinion. Which isn't even much reported in this article: the story is primarily about a woman questioning why her country's immigration policy is giving her husband a runaround that seems ... unnecessary.

I'm really mystified by requiring the overseas name-change, though -- is there some reasoning I'm missing? I seriously doubt anyone would object to just being asked for a patronym, and having all their new papers documented with that included -- it would feel far less like they were being asked to change their names and more like ... just another bit of information happens to appear.

There are a few places in central Asia where people only use one name -- how does Canada process them?

Yes of course Curtis, but the question is whether they will do this for all last names that are too common. Are they going to do this to Chinese immigrants as well? It's a legitimate question and as Nabisco said, it has nothing to do with rights, it's just a question.

Just to be pedantic, slocki, he wants to emigrate.

xxxpost

"You wanna come to Canada? Sure, no problem, but you'll have to change your name. Here's a list of approved surnames."

I want a job with the committee that chooses the approved surnames.

i got one of them :/

They don't have to process him, that's all I'm saying. I have no problem with his expression of an opinion, I just think a sovereign nation has the right to set whatever preconditions it wants when it comes to immigration. If Canada wants the guy to stick a finger up his ass and stand on his head, and he wants to be Canadian so bad, he's gotta do it.

(By the way, I think the policy is stupid, but I'm not Canadian, and I have no plans to emigrate there, so my thoughts on it don't matter)

OK, so a sovereign nation sets the precondition that only white people are allowed to obtain citizenship. Cool?

Ok, you're really not getting this, are you? x-post

The difference is between "If Canada wants everyone to stick a finger up his ass and stand on his head, and he wants to be Canadian so bad, he's gotta do it." and "If Canada wants certain people - and only people of a certain nationality and religion and race - to stick a finger up his ass and stand on his head, while everyone else can just salute a moose and sing a Sloan song, and he wants to be Canadian so bad, he's gotta do it." is kind of a fine one, but still a genuine complaint.

Nothing wrong with saying "I shall immigrate to Canada," Michael, to be more pedantic-- just like saying "I shall fuck off to Canada." Place you are immigrating/fucking off from is either implied or irrelevant to the sentence. English!

Imagine they tried to do this to people already Canadian-- specifically, everyone named "Jean" or "Marie" because the French Catholic birth certifs used to automatically give you one name or the other upon birth (or someting, I don't really know the whole story here admittedly).

The thing is, I feel sure I can remember people named Singh when I was growing up (though I can't pinpoint anyone for certain.) This seems unreal.

it's a 10-year-old law, article said.

Oh right. I don't remember hearing about this law coming into place 10 yrs ago but I was probably paying less attention.

I want to meet the immigration official who sat around one day and went, "THERE ARE TOO MANY SINGHS HERE. THIS MUST END."

I assume it is actually due to the fact that you can't handily use the name to track someone to their family-- but that is a complete assumption.

"OK, so a sovereign nation sets the precondition that only white people are allowed to obtain citizenship. Cool?"

Talk about completely missing the fucking point.

"I just think a sovereign nation has the right to set whatever preconditions it wants when it comes to immigration."

Talk about needing to clarify the fucking point.

I doubt it, Will -- "can't handily use the name to track someone to their family" is true of naming systems in, like, half of the world.

I think my point's pretty clear.

O did I misquote you?

But I don't think someone trying to get into the country has any right to question those requirements.

This assumes that in immigration cases the immigrant is always the beneficiary and the country should be skeptical. That's blatantly false, imagine the Bill Gates of India is Bill Singh. Would he be forced to change his name? Yes, the cultural norm is Canada's to force, but it's doing so only because of their perceived superiority over the immigrant class/culture. The mentality that the immigrants are somehow inferior to the "standard" Canadian way -- instead of just different -- shows a bit of institutionalized prejudice.

No, Bill, it's not at all. You're saying nations have the ability to set whatever preconditions they like for immigration, which is a truism on just a factual level -- they can set as many conditions as they want to enforce, whether they're fair or not. Then someone suggests a hypothetical: what if their conditions were race-based?* You say this misses the point somehow, but it doesn't -- it's an example of a condition that lots of people would think was unfair and a bad idea. Well, some people think requiring legal name changes is a bad policy, including some Canadian citizens, who -- in a democracy -- are meant to be helping set what that policy is.

I think your point is basically either obvious or stupid. Obviously people who want to legally emigrate to Canada have to follow whatever rules Canada sets. Duh. But if they think those rules are unfair or stupid, there's no reason they shouldn't say so. And if Canadians think those rules are unfair or stupid, there's no reason they shouldn't complain about it as well. So ... what's your point again?

(* = PS please note that immigration policies ARE based on ethnicity in lots of places -- e.g. the US has a quota system for what parts of the world we'll take what numbers of immigrants from)

Indeed. Which is even more reason to point out that as a world community, we do have a duty to question the immigration policies of all developed countries, because in point of fact what often ends up happening is that people who travel to said countries for political asylum often get sent back to face murder / rape / etc. As a result, to say that people should just follow the rules is not really the important issue.

They're just totally separate issues:

(1) people who want to go to Canada have to follow Canadian rules (because Canada can force them to)

(2) Canadian rules should ideally be good and fair ones

Those two statements have very little to do with one another.

And of course, there's also

(3) if you want to go to Canada, but their rules seem unfair and are giving you a run-around about it, it is fairly natural to say "you guys suck, I really want to join my wife but your rules are crappy"

This whole thing is weird as hell and makes no sense to me whatsoever.

reason no. 2454 why sikhs have more fun : singh means "lion", kaur means "princess". everyone is either a lion or a princess!

But then u are a boy princess...

Aside from swords - what are the other reasons?

Nobody has right to emigrate to Canada-so don't bitch if you actually have to make a sacrifice to do so.

And learn French or an Indian language while you're at it! Goddamn anglophone pantywaists.

CIC backpedals, says it was a wording issue and there is no mandatory name-change requirement: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/25/immigration-name.html

Having worked for Canadian Immigration within the past 5 years, the 1st article made no sense to me. We had thousands of Kaurs and Singhs (literally). The problem we encountered was information retrieval. If someone has a really common name, and doesn't include their file number in their communication (which in a lot of cases, was their only unique identifier), it slowed down their processing times considerably.

Also, no one was ever forced to change their name. It was policy to use what was on the passport, which caused some grief from people arguing that "that's not the name I use!"

Molly, Molly, Molly. And there was no yellow cake Uranium. Come on! ;)

nb that job sucked, and i made lots of people cry.

by making them stick a finger up their ass and stand on their heads?