Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Summary

This study contributes to the ongoing efforts to address systemic inequality within social work by examining Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants who are permanent residents (PR), refugees, temporary residents (TR), or undocumented immigrants. Using a cross-sectional design with a convenience sample (n = 653), we explore how social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants vary in relation to (a) respondents’ demographics, (b) contact with immigrants, (c) perceptions of equal opportunities among immigrants, (d) perceptions of deservingness for immigrants with different legal statuses, and (e) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these attitudes.

Findings

While Canadian social workers generally express positive attitudes toward immigrants, there is a slightly stronger endorsement for PR and refugees to access public services compared to nonstatus (NS) immigrants and TR. Social workers who identify as conservative or have limited contact with immigrants are more likely to perceive NS immigrants as potential criminal threats or burdens on the healthcare system. Significantly, a majority of respondents feel that their social work training inadequately prepares them to work effectively with immigrants.

Applications

Canadian social workers advocate for principles of diversity, inclusion, and commitment to social justice. However, perceptions regarding which immigrants deserve access to social services vary based on legal status, suggesting a limitation in social workers’ professional mandate. The study discusses implications for social work education and training, emphasizing the need to address and unsettle systemic racism within the profession.

Keywords

Social work immigrants asylum seekers critical social work social work education migrants

Background

In the Canadian context, public polls indicate that Canadians typically support immigration and view immigrants as having a positive impact on the Canadian economy (Focus Canada, 2020). The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), however, reignited long-standing xenophobic racism in Canada, resulting in an increase in anti-Asian hate crimes against recent immigrants and Canadian citizens of Asian heritage (Chinese Canadian National Council Toronto Chapter, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic also had a profound impact on racialized immigrant communities, who were more vulnerable to the virus due to their higher representation in “essential jobs” that often lacked safety measures. Racialized immigrants are more likely to live in high-density housing, which further increased exposure to the coronavirus (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2021). Moreover, some international students and migrant workers with precarious immigration status who faced structural barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine (Zhao & Bhuyan, 2023), were excluded from emergency federal financial assistance and were unable to return home due to border restrictions (Esses et al., 2021; Macklin, 2022).

While there is substantial social work scholarship on culturally competent and anti-racist practice in Canada, little is known about Canadian social workers’ views toward immigrants, or how attitudes may vary for immigrants with different legal statuses. Previous surveys with social workers in the United States, Israel, and Sweden found that their views toward immigrants varied based on immigrants’ legal status and if the social worker reported a conservative religious or political affiliation (Park et al., 2011, 2022; Schütze, 2020; Tartakovsky & Walsh, 2016). In some cases, social workers regard asylum seekers and nonstatus (NS) (i.e., undocumented) immigrants as less deserving of publicly funded services (Furman et al., 2007; Park & Bhuyan, 2012). In previous studies, social work students and practitioners also reported feeling less knowledgeable about discrimination related to immigration statuses (McPherson et al., 2021) or how to work with NS immigrants (Held et al., 2018), which can contribute to their exclusion from social and health services (Jönsson & Kojan, 2017). A systematic review of the impact of healthcare professionals’ attitudes on treatment decisions indicates a troubling association between negative attitudes (e.g., implicit bias) and poor healthcare outcomes (Fitzgerald & Hurst, 2017).

This paper shares findings from a nation-wide survey of Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants. Using a cross-sectional design, we administered an online survey to solicit responses from social workers on their (a) demographic characteristics, (b) contact with immigrants, (c) perceptions of equal opportunities among immigrants versus citizens, (d) perceptions of deservingness for immigrants with different legal statuses, and (e) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these attitudes. Before presenting our findings, we first discuss the broader context of immigration to Canada, which has contributed to a growing proportion of the population who are racialized as minorities in addition to more people entering Canada with temporary and precarious legal status. We then review the research on factors that predict social workers’ attitudes toward marginalized groups that informed our analysis of Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants.

Literature review

The Canadian immigration system

Canada has continually relied on immigration settlement since it was first formed as a nation by European settlers to create an imagined “white nation” through the displacement and subjugation of “Indigenous peoples, polities and relationships from and with the land” (Snelgrove et al., 2014, p. 1). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, immigration policies were designed to facilitate the settlement of European immigrants while strictly regulating Chinese, Japanese, Indian (i.e. British Indian subjects), and Black migrants (e.g. African, African American or Afro-Caribbean) whose labor was essential to railway construction, logging, and domestic care work but who were also viewed as economic and cultural threats to Canadian society (Thobani, 2007). In the 1960s, neoliberal criteria (e.g., education, “skilled” work experience, age, and financial assets) replaced explicitly racist policies to select new immigrants who would contribute to Canada's economic prosperity (Jakubowski, 1997; Ku et al., 2019). As a result, since the 1970s, the demographics of immigrants and Canada's general population have become more “diverse,” with 23% of Canadians in the 2021 census born outside of Canada and 83% of immigrants admitted since 2016 identifying as non-white (Statistics Canada, 2022).

Immigration remains a “cornerstone” of Canada's economic growth, with over 430,000 new permanent residents (PR) admitted in 2022, equivalent to 1.1% of the existing population (Government of Canada, 2022). More than half of these immigrants were selected through one of Canada's “economic” programs, which have strict education, work experience, and language requirements (i.e., English or French). A smaller proportion were sponsored by family members or humanitarian immigrants (i.e., as refugees or on humanitarian and compassionate grounds). While Canada's focus on “merit”-based immigrant selection has been lauded as a success in attracting “skilled” immigrants globally, an increasing share of foreign nationals living in Canada have a precarious legal status that is characterized by their differential inclusion; immigrants who have a temporary permit to live, study, or work in Canada, but have limited access to social, economic, and political rights associated with citizenship (e.g., childcare, health care, access to higher education) (Goldring et al., 2009).

Since the 2010s, the number of immigrants entering Canada with a precarious status has grown steadily. In 2023, Statistics Canada estimated nearly 2.2 million non-PR, with an increase of 700,000 from the previous year alone (Statistics Canada, 2023). While many temporary migrants are granted work authorization and may apply for permanent residence from within Canada, precarious immigration status is associated with long-term economic marginalization (Goldring & Landolt, 2021), food and housing insecurity, and adverse health outcomes (Brabant & Raynault, 2012; Gagnon et al., 2021; Landolt, 2019). Policies that facilitate the loss of status for immigrants, leaving them with no legal right to reside in the country, have also led to increased numbers of NS immigrants (Goldring et al., 2009; Gagnon et al., 2021). Lack of official data on NS immigrants also contributes to their invisibility in mainstream Canadian society (Gagnon et al., 2021).

Impacts of systemic racism on immigrants in Canada

Critical race scholars argue that Canada's immigration system perpetuates colonial, imperialist, and racist social ordering through “zones of exceptionalism” (Faraday, 2016, p. 7) which restrict migrant workers’ mobility and rights (e.g., seasonal agricultural programs, live-in migrant caregivers) (Dua et al., 2005; Sharma, 2006; Walia, 2021). Differential inclusion is evident in publicly funded immigrant settlement programs which offer language training and employment services for new PR, while mostly excluding temporary workers, international students, and refugee claimants who are awaiting a decision on their claim (Bhuyan & Schmidt, 2018; Esses et al., 2021). Canadian immigration also reinforces racial and gender inequalities entrenched within the Canadian economy and society (Block & Galabuzi, 2011). Racialized immigrants are overrepresented in lower-paying precarious employment, contributing to higher poverty rates and negative outcomes for physical and mental health (Kaushik & Drolet, 2018; Liu, 2019; Premji & Shakya, 2017). Deskilling and underemployment among new immigrants likewise contribute to higher poverty rates (Liu, 2019; Reitz et al., 2014) and declining health among immigrants (Gagnon et al., 2021; Premji & Shakya, 2017).

While larger cities in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia continue to receive the majority of new immigrants, regional immigration programmes have been introduced to attract people to smaller cities and towns in regions that have experienced population and economic decline, including Northern Ontario and provinces located in the Prairies and Atlantic regions (Esses et al., 2021; Statistics Canada, 2022). The Atlantic Immigration Program is an example of an initiative meant to entice skilled workers, trades, and international graduates to work in the Atlantic provinces (Singer, 2022). Meanwhile, provincial policies that seek to preserve Quebec's French language and cultural identity have renewed Islamophobic and anti-immigrant public sentiment, reducing immigration numbers in Quebec (Abu-Laban & Nath, 2020). Additionally, Canadian immigration policies continue to disregard the sovereignty and basic needs of Indigenous communities (Bauder & Breen, 2022).

Research on social workers’ attitudes toward marginalized populations

Research on social workers’ attitudes toward different marginalized populations indicates that social workers’ views are generally similar to or more liberal (i.e., more positive) than public opinion in the countries where social workers are situated. Demographic characteristics that predict more negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or questionin (LGBTQ+) populations include having a more conservative religious and male gender identity (Dessel & Rodenborg, 2017; Woodford et al., 2012). Social workers’ attitudes are also predicted by the perception of “individual choice” associated with a stigmatized condition. Werner and Araten-Bergman (2017) found that social workers in Israel hold more stigma toward people who are perceived to have more control over a health condition (e.g., mental illnesses and dual diagnoses) than for people with intellectual disabilities who are seen as not responsible for their disability. Jensen and colleagues (2017) similarly found Danish social workers’ attitudes were more positive toward people with depression than toward people with schizophrenia, except in cases where the social worker perceived: (a) the patient could get out of their depression if they wanted or (b) it is not a medical illness. In the United States, social work students were also more likely to recognize LGBT discrimination as a concern if they considered sexual orientation and gender identity as biologically based compared with those who viewed sexual orientation to be an individual “choice” (Dessel & Rodenborg, 2017). The perception that some people are either responsible for the challenges they experience or choose to remain in their precarious situation indicates that etiology beliefs favoring individual agency versus structural determinants could predict the recognition of discrimination.

Research on public attitudes toward immigrants

In their comprehensive review of research on public attitudes toward immigrants in democratic countries, Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014) note that most studies have been informed by political economy or political psychology frameworks. Political economy studies tend to focus on the perceived economic “threats” or “benefits” associated with immigrants’ labor market participation (Gravelle, 2018; Malhotra et al., 2013). Group conflict theories also examine racialized prejudice toward immigrants with regard to “tangible” or perceived economic, criminal, or terrorist threats, especially in relation to the period following the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States (Esses et al., 2002) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Newbold et al., 2021). Discriminatory attitudes have also been studied with regard to perceived symbolic threats that racialized immigrant “others” represent to the imagined ethnocultural identity of a nation (Chavez, 2008; Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014).

Canadians hold relatively positive attitudes toward immigrants, as compared to public attitudes in the United States, in part due to Canada's geographic isolation, settler colonial history as a “nation of immigrants,” and national multicultural identity (Aytac et al., 2022). Canada's geographic isolation enables the state to select highly educated and skilled immigrants who are also more likely to be seen as benefiting the country (Reitz, 2012). Political ideology (i.e., to what extent does an individual hold more conservative or liberal views), media framing, and personal experience with immigrants, are also key factors associated with discriminatory views toward immigrants cross-nationally (Hainmueller & Hopkins, 2014). Furthermore, Esses et al. (2021) argue that prejudice and discrimination associated with negative attitudes toward immigrants are key determinants of health and well-being among immigrants.

Research on social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants

Within the emerging research on social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants conducted in the United States, Sweden, and Israel, conservative political or religious identity, male gender, less contact with immigrants, and a lower level of education are consistent predictors of social workers’ negative attitudes toward immigrants. In a national sample of social workers in the United States, Park et al. (2011) found that Hispanic ethnicity, a liberal political outlook, and contact with immigrants were associated with more positive attitudes toward immigrants. The study reported a significant positive association between political conservatism and the perceived threats (e.g., economic, political, cultural) associated with undocumented immigrants in the United States (Park et al., 2011). Similarly, Schütze (2020) found that Swedish social workers’ negative attitudes toward immigrants were linked to a strong national identity and perceptions of difficult or time-consuming encounters with migrant service users. Furthermore, across several studies, more negative attitudes toward immigrants were more prevalent in situations where elements of perceived threat (e.g., cultural, economic) or individual choice co-occur, thereby minimizing structural determinants of inequality faced by immigrants. To illustrate, Park et al. (2022) found that almost a third of social workers sampled in the United States disagreed that immigrants are disadvantaged compared to U.S.-born citizens, despite evidence of higher rates of poverty, wage gaps, racialized inequality, and criminalization (through the criminal justice and immigration systems) faced by immigrants. Social workers who disagreed that immigrants face structural inequality were also more likely to perceive them as an economic or criminal threat or public burden (i.e., on social or health services).

Building upon previous research conducted in the United States, this survey represents the first (known) examination of Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants. Public opinion polls suggest that Canadians are more receptive to immigrants and cultural diversity than people in other immigrant-receiving countries (e.g., United States, Australia, Germany) (Simon & Sikich, 2007), with sharpening polarization since 2005 (Besco, 2021). Gravelle (2018) identified partisanship, economic interests, perceived cultural threat (i.e., threat to Whiteness as the norm), and the local context as explanatory factors for negative public attitudes toward immigrants in Canada. Our study aims to contribute to this literature by examining nuances in attitudes among Canadian social workers whose affinity for social justice and multiculturalism is central to the profession's identity (Bhuyan et al., 2023).

Methods

Study design

Using a cross-sectional survey design, we recruited 1,140 social work practitioners from across Canada between May and August 2020 to complete an anonymous online survey about their attitudes toward immigrants, professional and personal contact with immigrants, and professional education or experience with immigrants. The original survey instrument developed to survey social workers in the United States (Park et al., 2011, 2022) was modified to reflect Canadian immigration and social work contexts (i.e., immigration status categories and social work titles) and offered in English and French, Canada's two official languages. We adapted demographic questions to match the 2016 Canadian Census race/ethnicity, gender, and region categories (Statistics Canada, 2017). We pilot-tested the English and French versions with six post-MSW social workers after receiving approval from the University of Toronto, Office of Research Ethics. We recruited respondents with support from administrators of Canadian schools of social work (n = 3) and national (n = 2) and provincial (n = 11) social work associations, who agreed to distribute the survey via email, e-newsletter, social media, or other means. We also emailed 448 social workers in Ontario and British Columbia whose profiles were publicly listed on www.findasocialworker.ca, an online directory for Canadian social workers in private practice. Study eligibility was restricted to people with a BSW and/ or MSW who were currently employed in a social work-related position. Full-time academics, social work students, and volunteers were not eligible. The study recruitment and consent form included a disclaimer that the study eligibility was broader than how the title “social worker” is legally defined in several Canadian provinces, where the title can only be used by those registered with the provincial social work college or association. Of the 1,140 survey respondents, 879 met all eligibility criteria. Seventy-four percent (N = 653) completed all attitude, structural inequality, and COVID-19 scales and all sociodemographic, geographic, education, and profession-related questions. The responses from the sample with a completed dataset were used in regression analyses, while maximum amount of information was used in paired t-tests, which is why the t-tests have larger sample sizes that of the analytical sample.

Measures

Social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants scale (AS)

The social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants scale (AS) (Park et al., 2011, 2022) was highly intercorrelated and reflected attitudes about the cultural, criminal, and economic impact of immigrants. Using a four-point Likert scale, respondents indicated agreement with 50 questions (1 = disagree strongly, 2 = disagree somewhat, 3 = agree somewhat, 4 = agree strongly). Lower scores indicate positive attitudes toward immigrants, while higher scores indicate negative attitudes. Attitudes toward immigrants were assessed for the following legal statuses: (a) PR; (b) refugees/refugee claimants (e.g., United Nations convention refugees or asylum seekers awaiting a decision on a refugee claim submitted within Canada); (c) temporary residents (TR; i.e., people with a temporary study or work permit); and (d) NS immigrants (i.e., undocumented immigrants).

Equal opportunity scale (EQS)

For the equal opportunity scale (EQS), we used a three-item, four-point Likert-type scale to assess views on immigrant success opportunities relative to Canadian citizens (e.g., “Immigrants have the same opportunities for success as Canadian citizens” and “All immigrants, regardless of race/ethnicity or country of origin, have equal opportunities for success in Canada”). Lower scores indicate greater awareness of structural inequalities immigrants face, while higher scores indicate having limited awareness.

COVID-19 scale (COVIDS)

We created a five-item, four-point Likert-type COVID-19 scale (COVIDS) to assess if views toward the different immigrant status groups had changed since the onset of the pandemic (e.g., “The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately increased health and economic risks for immigrant groups” and “The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected my views toward different immigrant groups”). Lower scores indicate that respondents’ attitudes toward immigrants had not changed since the pandemic, while higher scores indicate worsening views.

Data analysis

Negative scale item values were reversed and added to create a score. The lowest score was set to zero to facilitate data comparisons, with higher scores indicating respondents’ stronger support for aversive immigrant-related statements. Scale internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and unidimensionality with post hoc principal component analysis. We used negative binomial regression models to determine if sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, gender, political views, race/ethnicity, religion, citizenship status, immigration history), residential area, educational background, social work employment experience, and perception of immigrant groups’ deservingness of social services compared to Canadian citizens were associated with higher (a) AS, (b) EQS, and (c) COVIDS scores. Our results exclude respondents who selected “prefer not to respond” or did not answer all AS, EQS, and COVIDS scale items. Scores from three scales were considered discrete count data.

Paired t-tests were performed to compare social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants with different legal statuses. The sample size for the t-test was always larger than that of the analytical sample as the t-tests required responses of only two items. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were provided along with t-values to indicate the degree of the mean differences. A widely adopted convention involves classifying effect sizes as small (|d| = 0.2), medium (|d| = 0.5), and large (|d| = 0.8) according to the standards proposed by Cohen (1988).

Results

Sample characteristics

The analytic sample's demographic characteristics (Table 1) are consistent with the profile of Canadian social workers reported in similar surveys (Ashcroft et al., 2022; Bejan et al., 2014). Most respondents identified as white (72%), female (84%; male: 13%; other gender: 3%¹), and under age 50 (74%). Non-white respondents identified as Asian (10%), Black (5%), or Indigenous (5%), mirroring the 2021 census (Statistics Canada, 2022). Most respondents also identified as politically progressive (79%) and many were nonreligious (46%). The majority of the respondents lived in central Canada (58%) (i.e., Ontario and Quebec). The remaining lived in the Atlantic region (24%; i.e., Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia), the Prairies (10%; i.e., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta), and the West Coast (8%; i.e., British Columbia). Approximately 16% of social workers sampled identified as immigrants. Almost all (94%) respondents were registered social workers working in counseling (55%), case management (25%), or administration (5%).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics with percentages and median scale scores profiling the analytic sample.

	Median scale scores
	Full sample (N, %)	Attitude (range = 0–150)	Equal opportunity (range = 0–9)	COVID (range = 0–15)
(Total)	653, 100.0	14 (M = 19.12 SD = 17.54)	2 (M = 2.04 SD = 1.99)	0 (M = 0.91 SD = 1.72)
Age
20–30	155, 23.7	12	2	0
31–40	202, 31.0	12	1	0
41–50	124, 19.0	12	2	0
51–60	100, 15.3	15	2	0
61+	72, 11.0	19.5	2	1
Gender
Female	550, 84.2	13	2	0
Male	87, 13.3	19	3	1
Other	16, 2.5	7.5	0	0
Political views
Progressive	515, 78.9	11	1	0
Moderate	93, 14.2	27	3	1
Conservative	24, 3.7	45.5	3.5	2
Other	21, 3.2	14	3	1
Race/ethnicity
White	473, 72.4	14	2	0
Non-White	180, 27.6	14	2	0
Religion
Christian	217, 33.2	18	2	1
Other	133, 20.4	14	2	0
No affiliation	303, 46.4	11	1	0
Education
BSW	221, 33.8	17	2	0
MSW	432, 66.2	12.5	2	0
Degree completion
<1 year	62, 9.5	11	1	0
1–5 years	273, 38.1	10	1	0
5–10 years	162, 22.6	14	2	0
10–15 years	94, 13.2	17	2	0
15–20 years	66, 9.2	16	2	1
20 + years	122, 17.0	17	3	0
Citizenship
Canadian Citizen	645, 98.8	14	2	0
Other	8, 1.2	40.5	2	1
Canadian immigrant?
Yes	105, 16.1	18	2	1
No	548, 84.0	13	2	0
Canadian regions
Central	376, 57.6	14	2	0
Atlantic	154, 23.6	11.5	2	0
Prairies	65, 10.0	18	2	0
West Coast	54, 8.3	13.5	2	0
North	4, 0.6	10	0	0.5
Area setting
Urban area	337, 51.6	13	2	0
Suburban area	151, 23.1	15	2	0
Small town	90, 13.8	17	2	0
Country/rural area	75, 11.5	15	2	1

Social work education and professional immigrant-related knowledge and practice

Within our sample, 52% of respondents said they had “very little” specific content on how to work with immigrants in their coursework, while 30% said they had “some” (See Table 2). Most respondents also reported receiving “no” or “very little” (86%) content on immigration policies as part of their social work education, and “very little” or “some” (75%) cultural competency course content. Respondents reported working directly with “very few” or “some” (77%) immigrants as part of their social work field education. More than half of respondents were “not sure” (27%) or said their social work education “did not” (40%) adequately prepare them to work effectively with immigrants and refugees. When asked about their current employment, 29% of respondents said they serve “few” immigrant clients, while 23% said they serve “many” (see Table 2). 45% said their current employer offered “no” specific training for working with immigrants. In comparison, only five percent said they received “quite a bit” of training. Overall, most respondents (80%) said they wanted more immigration training.

Table 2.

Percentages and median scale scores for social work education and current employment-related variables.

	Median scale scores
	Full sample (N, %)	Attitude (range = 0–150)	Equal opportunity (range = 0–9)	COVID (range = 0–15)
How much specific content on how to work with immigrants did your social work courses (BSW or MSW) include?
None	84, 12.9	16	2	0
Very little	342, 52.4	14	2	0
Some	195, 29.9	12	2	0
Quite a bit	32, 4.9	15	0.5	0
How much specific content on immigration laws and policies did your social work courses (BSW or MSW) include?
None	256, 39.2	16	2	0
Very little	304, 46.6	13	2	0
Some	78, 11.9	12	2	0
Quite a bit	15, 2.3	10	2	0
How much specific content on cultural competency or cultural sensitivity related to immigrants did your social work courses (BSW or MSW) include?
None	58, 8.9	16	2	0
Very little	228, 34.9	15	2	0
Some	260, 39.8	11	2	0
Quite a bit	107, 16.4	12	2	0
What is your best guess on how many of the clients you personally served at your practicum sites were immigrants?
None	42, 6.4	17.5	2	1
Very few	186, 28.5	15.5	2	0
Some	317, 48.6	12	2	0
Most	78, 12.0	14	1	0
All/almost all	30, 4.6	9	0.5	0
What is your best guess on how many of the clients you personally serve at your social work employment site are immigrants?
None	32, 4.9	18	3	0.5
Few	188, 28.8	16	2	0.5
Some	228, 34.9	11	2	0
Many	152, 23.3	14	2	0
Most	53, 8.1	13	1	0
How much specific training has your current social work employer provided you on how to work with immigrants?
None	295, 45.2	13	1	0
Very Little	210, 32.2	13	2	0
Some	113, 17.3	17	2	0
Quite a bit	35, 5.4	15	2	0
How much specific training has your current social work employer provided you on immigration laws and policies?
None	416, 63.7	13.5	2	0
Very little	170, 26.0	15	2	0
Some	54, 8.3	17.5	2	0
Quite a bit	13, 2.0	16	2	0
Do you feel that you have enough knowledge and skills to work effectively with immigrants and refugees?
No	260, 39.8	12	2	0
Not sure	178, 27.3	15	2	0
Yes	215, 32.9	16	2	0
Would it be helpful if your current social work employment site had more training on issues of immigration?
No	50, 7.7	22	3	1
Not sure	84, 12.9	13	2	0
Yes	519, 79.5	13	2	0

In terms of perceptions regarding immigrant's deservingness of social services as compared to Canadian citizens (i.e., “less,” “the same,” “more”), most respondents believed that immigrants in general deserve “the same” access to social services (i.e., PR: 93%, NS: 73%, TR: 83%, refugee/refugee claimants: 66%). Nonetheless, respondents identified refugee/refugee claimants as deserving of “more” social services than other categories of immigrants (i.e., PR: 6%, NS: 12%, TR: 7%, refugee/refugee claimants: 30%).

Predictors of Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants

A series of Table 3 presents the negative binomial regression of sociodemographic, geographic, and education-related variables in addition to political views and perceptions on immigrants’ access to public benefits as predictors of the overall attitude (i.e., AS), equal opportunity (EQS), and COVID-19 (COVIDS) scale scores.

Table 3.

Negative binomial regression analyses.

Predictors	Outcome 1: Attitude scale score (N = 653)	Outcome 2: Equal opportunity scale score (N = 653)	Outcome 3: COVID scale score (N = 653)
	Exp (β), 95% CI, p-value	Exp (β), 95% CI, p-value	Exp (β), 95% CI, p-value
Attitude scale	N/A	1.01, [1.01, 1.02], < .001	1.05, [1.04, 1.06], < .001
Equal opportunity scale	1.06, [1.03, 1.09], < .001	N/A	1.06, [1.00, 1.12], .06
COVID scale	1.21, [1.17, 1.25], < .001	1.04, [0.99, 1.10], .13	N/A
Gender
Female	Reference group
Male	1.23, [1.06, 1.43], .007	1.05, [0.85, 1.30], .67	0.96, [0.70, 1.31], .78
Other	1.05, [0.75, 1.47], .78	0.75, [0.44, 1.30], .31	0.09, [0.01, 0.68], .02
Political views
Progressive	Reference group
Moderate	1.25, [1.06, 1.46], .007	1.32, [1.07, 1.63], .008	1.14, [0.84, 1.54], .40
Conservative	1.60, [1.22, 2.10], .001	1.12, [0.77, 1.62], .56	0.96, [0.58, 1.57], .86
Other	1.03, [0.77, 1.38], .82	1.39, [0.93, 2.07], .11	1.03, [0.56, 1.90], .93
Canadian region
Central	Reference group
Atlantic	0.83, [0.72, 0.95], .008	1.09, [0.89, 1.32], .41	1.12, [0.83, 1.51], .46
Prairies	1.20, [1.00, 1.44], .046	0.91, [0.70, 1.18], .49	0.70, [0.46, 1.07], .10
West Coast	1.10, [0.91, 1.34], .32	1.09, [0.82, 1.44], .55	0.95, [0.63, 1.44], .82
North	0.69, [0.34, 1.34], .26	0.76, [0.25, 2.26], .62	3.69, [0.94, 14.45], .06
How much specific content on immigration laws and policies did your social work courses (BSW or MSW) include?
(Continuous)	0.89, [0.82, 0.98], .013	0.95, [0.83, 1.08], .41	1.40, [1.15, 1.70], < .001
What is your best guess on how many of the clients you personally served at your practicum sites were immigrants?
(Continuous)	1.05, [0.99, 1.13], .13	0.93, [0.84, 1.02], .14	0.72, [0.62, 0.84], < .000
What is your best guess on how many of the clients you personally serve at your social work employment site are immigrants?
(Continuous)	0.95, [0.89, 1.01], .098	0.93, [0.85, 1.02], .10	1.18, [1.03, 1.34], .014
In comparison to Canadian citizens, NS immigrants should have [extent] amount social services
Less	Reference group
The same	0.71, [0.60, 0.83], < .001	1.07, [0.83, 1.37], .62	1.17, [0.83, 1.66], .37
More	0.59, [0.45, 0.76], < .001	0.59, [0.39, 0.88], .011	1.58, [0.85, 2.93], .15
In comparison to Canadian citizens, temporary residents should have [extent] amount social services
Less	Reference group
The same	0.82, [0.68, 0.99], .04	0.99, [0.75, 1.29], .91	1.28, [0.86, 1.90], .22
More	0.78, [0.54, 1.13], .18	1.04, [0.56, 1.95], .90	1.21, [0.52, 2.79], .65
Constant	25.10, [12.43, 50.67], < .000	1.17, [0.43, 3.16], .76	0.17, [0.04, 0.68], .012

Note. A set of statistically significant sociodemographic, geographic, educational, and profession-related predictors based on the analytic sample's attitude scale (Outcome 1), equal opportunity scale (Outcome 2), and COVID-19 scale (Outcome 3) scores as covariates. Predictor variables that were not statistically significant are not shown.

Higher attitude scale scores, indicating more pessimistic views, were associated with social workers who reported higher EQS and COVIDS scores and identified as male, had moderate or conservative political views, and resided in the Prairies (see Table 3). Lower attitude scale scores, indicating more favorable immigrant views, were associated with social workers who identified as female, had progressive political views, resided in Canada's Atlantic region, had more social work education regarding immigration laws and policies, and were more likely to view NS immigrants and TR as deserving of social services.²

Higher scores on the EQS, indicating more negative attitudes, were associated with the degree to which respondents denied structural inequality for immigrants compared to Canadian citizens. Denial of structural inequality was associated with social workers reporting higher AS scores, moderate political views, and the belief that immigrants should receive less access to social services than Canadian citizens.

Respondents who served relatively more immigrants in their current employment had higher COVIDS scores, signifying that the respondents’ views toward immigrants had worsened since the onset of the COVID pandemic. Conversely, respondents who served more immigrants in their social work practicum, had lower COVIDS scores, indicating that their views toward immigrants had not changed since the pandemic (although the values are likely to have been inflated due to small number of the group in the sample).

Deservingness analysis: Immigration status group comparisons

Figures 1 and 2 show graphs of paired t-test analyses for mean attitude scores by immigration status (e.g., NS, TR, refugee and refugee claimants [RRC]) compared to PR for select survey items. While respondents were generally positive about immigrants, there was some variance in their views of NS, TR, and RRCs compared to PR. While most respondents disagreed that COVID-19 negatively affected their views toward immigrants (Figure 1a), their views toward NS (M = 1.22), TR (M = 1.17) and RRC (M = 1.16) were slightly more negative than PR (M = 1.11). Despite most respondents endorsing that immigrants should have the same access to social services as Canadians (Figure 1b), compared to PR (M = 2.05), their ratings indicated that RRC (M = 2.23) should have more access, while NS (M = 1.96) and TR (M = 1.95) should have significantly less access.

Figure 1.

Pairwise comparison of COVIDS. ***p < .001, d = Cohen’s d (effect size), N = Sample size for paired t-test. Note: The mean attitude scores for how negatively the Coronavirus pandemic affected social workers’ views toward immigrants.

Figure 2.

Pairwise comparison of access to services in comparison to Canadian citizens based on immigration status. ***p < .001, d = Cohen’s d (effect size), N = Sample size for paired t-test. Note: Comparing particular immigrant groups to Canadian citizens, the mean attitude scores indicate the degree to which social workers believe immigrants should have access to social services.

Table 4 Shows specific attitudes scale response items by immigration status group. While social workers overall strongly disagreed that immigrants burden the healthcare system, NS (M = 2.07), TR (M = 1.44), and RRC (M = 1.54) were perceived as significantly more likely to do so than PR (M = 1.23). While most social workers overall strongly disagreed that immigrants increase the threat of terrorism, NS (M = 1.31), TR (M = 1.16), and RRC (M = 1.25) were perceived to evoke the threat of terrorism significantly more than PR (M = 1.13). Although social workers overall strongly disagreed that immigrants were more likely to commit crimes than Canadians, NS (M = 1.27), TR (M = 1.15), and RRC (M = 1.23) were perceived as significantly more likely to commit crimes than PR (M = 1.13). Finally, despite social workers overall strongly disagreeing that immigrants take jobs away from Canadians, compared to PR (M = 1.25), NS (M = 1.35), and TR (M = 1.33) were perceived as more likely to take jobs while RRC (M = 1.20) were considered less likely.

Table 4.

Pairwise comparison of attitude scale items based on immigration status.

Items for each immigrant group	Permanent resident (reference group)	Nonstatus	Temporary resident	Refugee/refugee claimant
Burden the healthcare system	1.24	2.07*** (t = 28.69, d = 0.97, N = 867)	1.43*** (t = 9.891, d = 0.33, N = 872)	1.54*** (t = 12.76, d = 0.43, N = 872)
Increases the threat of terrorism	1.13	1.31*** (t = 10.55, d = 0.36, N = 871)	1.16* (t = 2.19, d = 0.07, N = 870)	1.25*** (t = 8.01, d = 0.27, N = 871)
More likely to commit more crimes than Canadians	1.13	1.27*** (t = 8.63, d = 0.29, N = 869)	1.15 (t = 1.83, d = 0.06, N = 872)	1.23*** (t = 6.97, d = 0.24, N = 873)
Take jobs away from Canadians	1.25	1.35*** (t = 5.23, d = 0.18, N = 873)	1.32*** (t = 4.71, d = 0.16, N = 872)	1.20** (t = −3.01, d = −0.10, N = 872)

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, d = Cohen's d (effect size), N = Sample size for paired t-test

Note. Attitude scale items in this table mostly demonstrated a statistically significant difference in social workers’ attitude ratings when comparing permanent residents to other immigrant groups. All other attitude scale items were not statistically significant.

Discussion

The study offers the first known survey of Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants, with attention to how attitudes vary based on different legal immigrant statuses. Consistent with previous Canadian public opinion research, our survey of Canadian social workers reported generally positive attitudes toward immigrants. Moreover, the social workers’ attitudes appeared slightly more favorable and less polarized than their U.S. counterparts (Park et al., 2022), likely reflecting the historical consensus among leading Canadian political parties and the public, including Conservatives, who support immigration (Besco, 2021). While Canadian social workers report a narrower attitude range than social workers in the United States (Park et al., 2022), we discovered small yet statistically significant differences in attitude scores based on respondents’ political views, gender, region, educational background, and the degree to which they acknowledge that immigrants face disproportionate structural inequality.

Attitudes toward immigrants: the sample's professional and demographic profile

The average respondent had an MSW degree and identified as a White woman under age 50 with progressive political views. This profile is consistent with the demographic profile of the average social worker in both Canadian and U.S. research and national databases (Bejan el al., 2014; Salsberg et al., 2020). Surprisingly, neither immigrant background nor identifying as a racialized minority predicted attitudes toward immigrants in our findings. In contrast, positive attitudes toward immigrants with different legal status were linked to progressive political views, perceptions of deservingness, perceptions of structural inequality, and increased contact with immigrants in social work practice. Contact with immigrants at work corresponded with attitudes becoming more negative since the onset of the COVID pandemic, whereas more contact with immigrants during practicum placement did not change attitudes. These associations suggest the significant role that current events like the COVID pandemic can play in attitudes toward immigrants. We also note that increasing social workers’ knowledge and experience with immigrants with different immigration groups could lead to more positive attitudes and shape their willingness to work with immigrants who are marginalized in Canada.

Reinforcing differential inclusion for immigrants’ precarious Status

Differential inclusion emerges as a key theme, reflecting broader trends in Canadian immigration and social welfare policies. While refugees and permanent residents are generally deemed deserving of the same services offered to Canadian citizens, it is concerning that some social workers view temporary and NS immigrants as less deserving of services. Canadian social workers perceive that NS immigrants are far more likely to burden the health system, compared to refugees and temporary residents. Social workers consistently perceived NS immigrants as representing a relatively higher criminal and terrorist threat, followed by refugees and then temporary residents. Lastly, while it is generally agreed that immigrants do not take jobs away from Canadian citizens (a finding that correlates with Canadian public opinion polls, Besco, 2021), compared to PR, NS immigrants were rated as a more likely economic threat followed by temporary immigrants.

These trends in perceived deservingness and immigrant threat mirror the neo-liberalization of Canadian immigration and social welfare policies, with implications for social workers’ capacity to engage effectively with immigrants who are structurally disadvantaged due to their precarious legal status in Canada. While the Canadian government continues to invest in a range of settlement services for newly settled PR and resettled refugees through free language classes, employment support, and general orientation to their new communities, temporary and NS immigrants remain largely excluded from federally-funded services (with notable exceptions in community-based organizations) (Atak & Graham, 2020; Magalhaes et al., 2010). NS immigrants, furthermore, are often exposed to labour exploitation, housing and food insecurity, and exclusion for vital health services, especially during the period of public health and economic crises associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (Goldring et al., 2024).

Despite Canada's rhetoric of endorsing two-step migration, most immigrants entering Canada with a temporary permit experience long periods of precarious status with limited access to public services and an uncertain path to citizenship (Goldring & Landolt, 2021). Government and organizational policies, furthermore, often restrict access to services for immigrants with precarious status, thereby limiting Canadian social workers’ capacity to engage with immigrants who are NS or on temporary permits. These structural realities likely contribute to social workers’ beliefs that NS immigrants are less deserving of services and the relatively low number of social workers in our sample that report working with immigrants in their current employment sites. These findings suggest that some social workers have limited knowledge of the significant role immigration policies, and the production of precarious immigration status plays in shaping social workers’ perception of who is deserving of social work services.

Education and training related to immigration status and structural inequality

Survey findings also indicate that social work students generally receive very little education about immigration policy or how to work with immigrants who have a precarious status. With the exception of those who made deliberate efforts to gain this knowledge, their lack of training persisted while in the field. The association between denying structural inequality and negative immigrant attitudes further indicates that social workers entering the field need better education about the policies and social practices that shape structural inequalities for immigrants. Considering the large number of new or recent immigrants residing across Canada, immigration content must be integrated throughout the social work curriculum to benefit all students, regardless of their specialization.

While social work research and education emphasize “cultural competency” when working with immigrants and refugees who are constructed as racial “others” (Este, 2007; Lee & Bhuyan, 2013), our findings support Käkaelä's (2020) call for educational approaches to highlight power differentials that shape social work practice with immigrants and refugees, including immigrants’ legal relationship with the state and related experiences of marginalization, labor market exploitation, and denial of social rights. Gonzalez Benson et al. (2022) suggest social work adopt a critical framework incorporating a “rights-based, participatory-based and labor-focused” approach for conceptualizing immigration to enable a “structural analysis of immigration that takes account of systemic, institutional, and ideological means of exploitation and benefit from im/migrant labor, rather than a person-centered analysis” (p. 4). Such an approach would highlight the social demand for labor in immigrant-receiving countries as a structural pull factor and draw attention to exclusions and exploitation of immigrant labor, shaping the lives of many immigrants (Gonzalez-Benson et al., 2022). Furthermore, it would challenge and disrupt conceptions of “deservingness” for services tied to immigration status.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. While the sample characteristics resemble the social workers’ profiles of other studies, the convenience and snowballing sampling approach may limit the generalizability of the study's findings. Social workers with more favorable views toward immigrants may have been more inclined to take the time to complete all survey items. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design limits causal analysis regarding the relationships between social work education, contact with immigrants, and demographic predictors of immigrant attitudes.

Some survey items, its length, and the timing of data collection may have influenced the study findings. Assessing attitudes toward four immigrant groups in Canada lengthened the survey, potentially leading to more survey dropouts before all items were completed. The timing of data collection following the newly introduced Atlantic pilot program—which allows employers to work in partnership with settlement services to bring temporary foreign workers into the region—may also have contributed to more Atlantic region respondents in our sample reporting positive attitudes toward immigrants compared to other regions. Surveying during the summer of 2020, amid public uprisings against police violence against Black, Indigenous, and people of color, may have also introduced social desirability bias for self-reported survey items that assess endorsement of Whiteness as a social norm. Questions about “equal opportunity for success” for immigrants may have also captured respondents’ strengths-based lens instead of assessing structural inequality awareness. Similarly, although most immigrants are racialized as minorities in Canada (i.e., non-white), the survey did not explicitly assess how attitudes toward systemic racism shape views toward immigrants. Future research should evaluate the relationship between racial attitudes and attitudes toward immigrants. While noting limitations to generalizability, the study findings shed light on social workers’ preparedness to work with immigrants who have a precarious status in Canada.

Conclusion

Although social work practitioners and scholars/activists have been at the forefront of advocating for equitable access to services for NS immigrants across North America (Alcaraz et al., 2021; Negi et al., 2018), this study suggests that Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants with a precarious status remains a neglected and, at times, contested issue. Given the anticipated growth in immigration in Canada, coupled with global trends of forced migration and displacement, future research and social work education need to address attitude biases among social workers who perceive some immigrants as economic and/or symbolic threats to their national identity, or a burden on publicly funded social and health services. Furthermore, it is imperative to recognize that the majority of immigrants in Canada, who originate in countries in Asia and Africa, face systemic racism in their daily lives. Understanding the connection between social workers’ biases toward immigrants and systemic racism is imperative to dismantle prejudicial attitudes and contributing to a more inclusive and equitable social work practice. While it is encouraging that exposure to diverse immigrant groups has the potential to cultivate more favorable attitudes and increase readiness to support marginalized immigrants, neoliberal recidivism within Canada's social welfare systems may worsen judgments of deservingness for immigrants with precarious status or undocumented individuals.

As we navigate the complexities of immigration in Canada and globally, future research and social work education must prioritize addressing these attitude biases. Emphasizing the intersectionality of precarious immigration and systemic racism within the profession is essential for fostering transformative changes that align with the principles of social justice, ensuring that social workers contribute meaningfully to a more just and compassionate society.

Footnotes

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this project was given by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Richard B. Splane Applied Social Policy and Social Innovation Fund,Faculty Research Grant,Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work,University of Toronto.

Declarations of conflict of interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Authors’ contributions

The authors confirm the contribution to the article as follows: R.B. conceived of the study design,coordinated data collection,statistical analysis,and data interpretation,and drafted the manuscript. S.O. contributed to data collection,statistical analysis,data interpretation,and drafting of the manuscript. C.S. contributed to the study design,interpretation of the data,and drafting of the manuscript. I.K. assisted with computing final statistical analysis and data presentation. A.R. assisted with study design and provided oversight on all statistical analysis and interpretation. J.H. collaborated with study design,assisted with data collection,and provided feedback on preliminary analysis. Y.P. collaborated with study conceptualization,study design,and assisted with data interpretation.

ORCID iDs

Rupaleem Bhuyan

Catherine Schmidt

References

Abu-Laban

Nath

(2020). Citizenship, multiculturalism, and immigration: Mapping the complexities of inclusion and exclusion through intersectionality. In Tremblay

Everitt

(Eds), The Palgrave handbook of gender, sexuality, and Canadian politics (pp. 507–527). Palgrave Macmillan.

Alcaraz

Ferrer

Abes

J. G.

Lorenzetti

(2021). Hiding for survival: Highlighting the lived experiences of precarity and labour abuse among Filipino non-status migrants in Canada. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 6(4), 256–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-021-00169-x

Ashcroft

Sur

Greenblatt

Donahue

(2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers at the frontline: A survey of Canadian social workers. The British Journal of Social Work, 52(3), 1724–1746. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab158

Atak

Hudson

(2020). Montreal's sanctuary policy for non-status migrants: Opportunity and obstacles. Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees, 38(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.40787

Aytac

S. E.

Parkin

Triandafyllidou

(2022). Why are public attitudes towards immigration in Canada becoming increasingly positive? Toronto Metropolitan Centre for Immigraiton and Settlement (TMCIS) and the CERC in Migraiton and Integration at Toronto Metropolitan University.

Bauder

Breen

(2022). Indigenous perspectives of immigration policy in a settler country. Journal of International Migration & Integration, 24(1), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00951-4

Bejan

Craig

S. L.

Saini

(2014). I love my job but…..A portrait of Canadian social workers’ occupational conditions. Canadian Social Work Journal, 16(1), 23–45. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/94701

Besco

(2021). From stability to polarization: The transformation of Canadian public opinion on immigration, 1975-2019. American Review of Canadian Studies, 51(1), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2021.1902169

Bhuyan

Osazuwa

Schmidt

Park

(2023). “Unless we are Native, we are all immigrants to Canada”: Tensions between multicultural inclusion and settler-colonial consciousness among Canadian social workers. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work. Advance online. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2023.2291663

10.

Bhuyan

Schmidt

(2018). Identifying structural barriers to improve settlement outcomes for vulnerable groups of immigrant women: A knowledge synthesis report (Immigrant Women, Youth and Seniors, Issue). CERIS. https://km4s.ca/wp-content/uploads/Knowledge-Synthesis-Report-Identifying-Structural-Barriers-to-Improve-Settlement-Outcomes-for-Vulnerable-Groups-of-Immigrant-Women-2018.pdf

11.

Block

Galabuzi

G.-E.

(2011). Canada’s colour coded labour market. Wellesley Institute & Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/Colour_Coded_Labour_MarketFINAL.pdf

12.

Brabant

Raynault

M.-F.

(2012). Health situation of migrants with precarious status: Review of the literature and implications for the Canadian context—part A. Social Work in Public Health, 27(4), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2011.592076

13.

Chavez

L. R.

(2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford University Press.

14.

Chinese Canadian National Council Toronto Chapter. (2021). A year of racist attacks: Anti-Asian racism across Canada . One year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Author. https://drive.google.com/file/d/193CdlC8uq623VRlAzoO3ShfDTEutXQi2/view

15.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.

16.

Dessel

A. B.

Rodenborg

(2017). Social workers and LGBT policies: Attitude predictors and cultural competence course outcomes. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0231-3

17.

Dua

Razack

Warner

J. N.

(2005). Race, racism and empire: Reflections on Canada. Social Justice, 32(4), 1–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768333

18.

Esses

McRae

Alboim

Brown

Friesen

Hamilton

Lacassagne

Macklin

Walton-Roberts

(2021). Supporting Canada’s COVID-19 resilience and recovery through robust immigration policy and programs. FACETS, 6(1), 686–785. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0014

19.

Esses

V. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Hodson

(2002). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States and Canada in response to the September 11, 2001 “attack on America”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2002.00028.x

20.

Este

(2007). Cultural competency and social work practice in Canada: A retrospective examination. Canadian Social Work Review/Revue Canadienne de Service Social, 24(1), 93–104. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41669864

21.

Faraday

(2016, June). Canada’s choice: Decent work or entrenched exploitation for Canada’s migrant workers. Metcalf Foundation. https://metcalffoundation.com/publication/canadas-choice/

22.

Fitzgerald

Hurst

(2017). Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8

23.

Focus Canada. (2020). Canadian public opinion about immigration and refugees (Focus Canada - Fall 2020, Issue). Environics Institute for Survey Research. https://www.environicsinstitute.org/projects/project-details/canadian-public-opinion-about-immigration-and-refugees

24.

Furman

Langer

Wayne-Sanchez

Negi

N. J.

(2007). A qualitative study of immigration policy and practice dilemmas for social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1), 133–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23044228 https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2007.200500532

25.

Gagnon

Kansal

Goel

Gastaldo

(2022). Immigration status as the foundational determinant of health for people without status in Canada: A scoping review. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 24(1), 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-021-01273-w

26.

Goldring

Berinstein

Bernhard

(2009). Institutionalizing precarious migratory status in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 13(3), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020902850643

27.

Goldring

Landolt

(2021). From illegalised migrant toward permanent resident: Assembling precarious legal status trajectories and differential inclusion in Canada. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1866978

28.

Goldring

Landolt

Borras

Elgueta

Hormozinejad

Marshall

(2024). Multiple jeaopardy: Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-status families and workers in the GTA. FCJ Refugee Centre, York University and the University of Toronto. https://www.fcjrefugeecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Multiple-Jeopardy-Impacts-of-the-COVID-19-pandemic-on-non-status-families-and-workers-in-the-GTA-March-2024.pdf

29.

Gonzalez Benson

Cross

Montalvo

C. S.

(2022). Demanding migrant/immigrant labor in the coronavirus crisis: Critical perspectives for social work practice. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 31(3-5), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2022.2070894

30.

Gravelle

T. B.

(2018). Partisanship, local context, group threat, and Canadian attitudes towards immigration and refugee policy. Migration Studies, 6, 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnx058

31.

Hainmueller

Hopkins

D. J.

(2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17(1), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-102512-194818

32.

Held

M. L.

Cuellar

M. J.

Heffron

L. C.

(2018). A study of social work students’ knowledge and perceptions of stages of latino immigration. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1307148

33.

Jakubowski

L. M.

(1997). Immigration and the legalization of racism. Fernwood Publishing.

34.

Jensen

K. B.

Vendsborg

Hjorthøj

Nordentoft

(2017). Attitudes towards people with depression and schizophrenia among social service workers in Denmark. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 71(3), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039488.2016.1197309

35.

Jönsson

J. H.

Kojan

B. H.

(2017). Social justice beyond neoliberal welfare nationalism: Challenges of increasing immigration to Sweden and Norway. Critical and Radical Social Work, 5(3), 301–317. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/crsw/5/3/article-p301.xml https://doi.org/10.1332/204986017X15029696492785

36.

Käkelä

(2020). Narratives of power and powerlessness: Cultural competence in social work with asylum seekers and refugees. European Journal of Social Work, 23(3), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1693337

37.

Kaushik

Drolet

(2018). Settlement and integration needs of skilled immigrants in Canada. Social Sciences, 7(5), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7050076

38.

Bhuyan

Sakamoto

Jeyapal

Fang

(2019). “Canadian Experience” discourse and anti-racialism in a “post-racial” society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1432872

39.

Landolt

(2019). Assembling the politics of noncitizenship: Local struggles to enforce and extend access to health care (UT Sociology Working Paper No. 2019-01, Issue). https://www.sociology.utoronto.ca/news/working-paper-2019-01

40.

Lee

Bhuyan

(2013). Negotiating within whiteness in cross cultural clinical encounters. Social Service Review, 87(1), 98–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/669919

41.

Liu

(2019). The precarious nature of work in the context of Canadian immigration: An intersectional analysis. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 51(2), 169–185. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/736428 https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2019.0013

42.

Macklin

(2022). (In) essential bordering: Canada, COVID, and mobility. In Triandafyllidou

(Ed.), Migration and pandemics (pp. 22–43). Springer.

43.

Magalhaes

Carrasco

Gastaldo

(2010). Undocumented migrants in Canada: A scope literature review on health, access to services, and working conditions. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 12(1), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-009-9280-5

44.

Malhotra

Margalit

C. H.

(2013). Economic explanations for opposition to immigration: Distinguishing between prevalence and conditional impact. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 391–410. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23496604 https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12012

45.

McPherson

Villarreal-Otálora

Kobe

(2021). Injustice in their midst: Social work students’ awareness of immigration-based discrimination in higher education. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1670303

46.

Negi

N. J.

Roth

Held

M. L.

Scott

Boyas

(2018). Social workers must stand up for immigrant rights: Strategies for action. Social Work, 63(4), 373–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swy039

47.

Newbold

B. K.

Wayland

S. V.

Wahoush

Weerakoon

(2021). Canadian’s attitudes toward immigration in the COVID-19 era. Migration Letters, 18(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.33182/ml.v18i4.1232

48.

Park

Bhuyan

(2012). Whom should we serve? A discourse analysis of social workers’ commentary on undocumented immigrants. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 23(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2011.605745

49.

Park

Bhuyan

Richards

Rundle

(2011). U.S. social work practitioners’ attitudes towards immigrants and immigration: Results from an online survey. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 9(4), 367–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2011.616801

50.

Park

Torres

Bhuyan

Graves

Rundle

(2022). Social workers’ perceptions of structural inequality and immigrant threat: Results from a national survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 58(3), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1895936

51.

Premji

Shakya

(2017). Pathways between under/unemployment and health among racialized immigrant women in Toronto. Ethnicity and Health, 22(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2016.1180347

52.

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2021). Social inequalities in COVID-19 mortality by area and individual level characteristics in Canada , January to July/August 2020. Government of Canada. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/src/doc/PDF_COVID-19_Mort_Can_2020_EN.pdf

53.

Reitz

J. G.

(2012). The distinctiveness of Canadian immigration experience. Patterns of Prejudice, 46(5), 518–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2012.718168

54.

Reitz

J. G.

Curtis

Elrick

(2014). Immigrant skill utilization: Trends and policy issues. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 15(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-012-0265-1

55.

Salsberg

Quigley

Richwine

Sliwa

Azquaviva

Wyche

(2020). The social work profession: Findings from three years of surveys of new social workers. Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity. https://www.cswe.org/CSWE/media/Workforce-Study/The-Social-Work-Profession-Findings-from-Three-Years-of-Surveys-of-New-Social-Workers-Dec-2020.pdf

56.

Schütze

(2020). Attitudes matter—welfare work and migration in Sweden. Migration Studies, 8(3), 424–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/mny/mny048

57.

Sharma

(2006). Home economics: Nationalism and the making of ‘migrant workers’ in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

58.

Simon

R. J.

Sikich

K. W.

(2007). Public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policies across seven nations. International Migration Review, 41(4), 956–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2007.00107.x

59.

Singer

C. R.

(2022, March 4). Atlantic Immigration Program. Immigration.ca. https://www.immigration.ca/atlantic-immigration-pilot

60.

Snelgrove

Dhamoon

R. K.

Corntassel

(2014). Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and politics of settlers, and solidarity with indigenous nations. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(2), 1–32. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/21166

61.

Statistics Canada. (2017). 2016 Census topic: Immigration and ethnocultural diversity. Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/rt-td/imm-eng.cfm

62.

Statistics Canada. (2022). Census profile, 2021 census of population. Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

63.

Statistics Canada. (2023). Canada's demographic estimates for July 1, 2023: Record-high population growth since 1957 of Work. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230927/dq230927a-eng.htm

64.

Tartakovsky

Walsh

S. D.

(2016). Testing a new theoretical model for attitudes toward immigrants: The case of social workers’ attitudes toward asylum seekers in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(1), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115613860

65.

Thobani

(2007). Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

66.

Walia

(2021). Border and rule: Global migration, capitalism, and the rise of racist nationalism. Haymarket Books.

67.

Werner

Araten-Bergman

(2017). Social workers’ stigmatic perceptions of individuals with disabilities: A focus on three disabilities. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2017.1284288

68.

Woodford

M. R.

Luke

K. P.

Grogan-Kaylor

Fredriksen-Goldsen

K. I.

Gutierrez

(2012). Social work faculty support for same-sex marriage: A cross-national study of U.S. And anglophone Canadian MSW teaching faculty. Social Work Research, 36(4), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svs033

69.

Zhao

Bhuyan

(2023). Assembling social determinants of health: COVID-19 vaccination inequities for international students in Canada. International Social Work, 67(2), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728221143650

Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants with different legal statuses in Canada

Abstract

Summary

Findings

Applications

Keywords

Background

Literature review

The Canadian immigration system

Impacts of systemic racism on immigrants in Canada

Research on social workers’ attitudes toward marginalized populations

Research on public attitudes toward immigrants

Research on social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants

Methods

Study design

Measures

Social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants scale (AS)

Equal opportunity scale (EQS)

COVID-19 scale (COVIDS)

Data analysis

Results

Sample characteristics

Social work education and professional immigrant-related knowledge and practice

Predictors of Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants

Deservingness analysis: Immigration status group comparisons

Discussion

Attitudes toward immigrants: the sample's professional and demographic profile

Reinforcing differential inclusion for immigrants’ precarious Status

Education and training related to immigration status and structural inequality

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Ethical approval

Funding

Declarations of conflict of interests

Authors’ contributions

ORCID iDs

References