Cosmopolitanism, Global Citizenship, and Syrian Refugees in CanadaIntroductionCanada, as a nation, pledged globally to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees before February 2016 with this initiative being ongoing (Government of Canada, 2017). This policy has left the nation divided on Canada’s roles and responsibilities within the global community. While there has been extensive media attention drawn to the United States of America’s recent problematic policies pertaining to immigration and security, the global community has been led to believe that Canada is a progressive and accepting nation. However, a study conducted in 2016 by the Angus Reid Institute and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that Canadians aren’t as accepting and globally conscious as the Federal Government’s rhetoric has led global citizens to believe. This study found that 79% of Canadians felt that priority should be given to Canada’s own economic and workforce needs over the prioritization of people in crisis abroad (Proctor, 2016). Furthermore, 68% of Canadians believed that minorities should do more to fit in with mainstream Canadian/American society (Proctor, 2016). As both of these polls reveal strong nationalistic ways of thinking, the cosmopolitanism and global citizenship of Canadian citizens may be debated. As cosmopolitanism is the ideology of all human-beings being a part of a global community, having a shared set of morals, rights, and mutual responsibilities; such poll results encourage the exploration of the varying challenges and limitations of globalization. With the global community and global events continuing to become more interlinked due to market deregulation, climactic events, security instability, and transportation technologies; an increased emphasis needs to be placed on the duality of cosmopolitanism with individuals being encouraged to situate themselves within a global setting. It is through elaborating on this ideology that the contrast between centripetal geopolitical forces towards and the opposing centrifugal forces that have deeply divided geography and history may be challenged. Cosmopolitanism, Globalization, and Global CitizenshipThe ideology ofcosmopolitanism has continually evolved throughout time, being debated as tothe nature of its affiliation with globalization, nationalism, privilege, andglobal citizenship. As it was first theorized in Ancient Greece,cosmopolitanism was viewed as a manner in which an individual’s loyalty lay notsolely with the state or the relationships of kin and community, but with auniversal shared identity – furthermore, becoming a ‘citizen of the universe’.This ideology of one belonging to a global community, as opposed to anation-state has been discussed and debated across various works, with eachtheorist contributing to the narrative of what cosmopolitanism is and how it issubsequently linked to nationalism. With cosmopolitanism and nationalismoccurring concurrently, the manner of scale in which each exist has beenexamined and evaluated. With global interactions becoming increasinglyinterconnected due to neoliberal policy and shared markets, the relationbetween individual, state, and identity has been increasingly discussed overthe past two decades.It is due to such recentinstitutional structures and change that scholar Pheng Cheah argues thatcosmopolitanism is dependent and sustained by the state or institution. AsCheah views current institutions to have a global reach in their regulatoryfunction, she further theorizes that power is embedded within regulation andthat political consciousness or solidarity is dependent state functions, ofwhich can be further influenced by the individual. Her writing further buildsupon the theories of Immanuel Kant who initially viewed cosmopolitanism ashaving four central modalities. These pillars of cosmopolitanism included: (1)a world federation as the legal and political institutional basis forcosmopolitanism as a form of right; (2) the historical basis of cosmopolitanism in worldtrade; (3) the idea of a global public sphere; and (4) the importance ofcosmopolitan culture in instilling a sense of belonging to humanity.However, while several of Kant’s theoretical foundations are still applicabletoday, the majority of his work does not yield answer for current globalcircumstances. Due to his work originating in the 18th century, his ideologieswere unable to reflect upon the current globalized state of cosmopolitanism. AsKant believed that state had a fundamental role in the moral-cultural educationof its citizens, his work did not take into account the individual agency andthe violence imposed on various groups- further limiting the notion of globalcitizenship.Such ideologies ofcosmopolitanism being dependent on the state are further contested in the worksof fellow cosmopolitan theorist Keely Badger. As her work in response to Kanthighlights the ethnic, religious and racial conflicts that continue to degrade lifequality, human rights and freedom – she highlights that cosmopolitanism isbased on an individual’s education and their feelings of obligation to mankind,free of external government or temporal power. Contrary to the formalizedstructures presented by Cheah, Badger views cosmopolitanism as being dependenton conversations across boundaries of identity – including national, religiousor other; further allowing for an evolving cosmopolitan worldview. Furthermore,Badger emphasizes human plurality of being of the highest value, as well as,through discrediting state violence. Her work continues to further callcosmopolitanism to be centered upon a need for the toleration of the beliefs ofothers and what one may fail to understand. This notion of individual agency isalso agreed upon and addressed in Cheah’s work, as she addressescosmopolitanism in respect to the relation between cosmopolitanism andnationalism. Due to Cheah highlighting a distinction between the normativity ofmorality and that of cosmopolitan right, she argues that cosmopolitanism is notidentical to moral freedom but is merely an institutional vehicle for itsactualization. While this indicates that cosmopolitanism is not necessarilyopposed to nationalism, her writing shows that solidarity associated withcosmopolitanism is not affiliated with national character. Therefore, her viewof cosmopolitanism is not opposed to nationalism but to absolute statism. Whileboth articles present the limitations to nationalism and the potential violencethat has resulted from nation-state tendencies, Cheah and Badger call for therole of non-government organizations (NGOs) to fill a leadership role in ouragglomerated world. Both authors theorize that such organizations have a roleto administer international cooperation, economic development, internationallaw, and human rights. However, the authors discuss potential limitations ofsuch organizations, of which can be exemplified in Badger’s critique of theUnited Nations and how the organization walks a fine line between exercisingits governance power and working within the confines of conflictingsovereignties. While the work of Cheah does not mention grass-rootsinitiatives, Badger’s article goes on to call for the need of grass-roots NGOsto combat the rampant neoliberal capitalism that has propagated globally sincethe 1990s. However, she further theorizes that this manner of overcomingneoliberalism can only be sustained through continual consciousnesstranscending and overcoming the constraining rhetoric presented bynationalism/statism driven by corporations, as well as nation states. Therefore,it is suggested that cosmopolitanism is distanced from the state andnationalistic identification, as cosmopolitanism from below via normative andpolitically oriented forms of social action are determined to be more powerfulin cultivating a shared cosmopolitan consciousness. Nevertheless, this argumentis challenged within limitations of Cheah’s writing as she questions who isprivileged as being cosmopolitan and how are transnational underclasses ormarginalized groups limited from participating in such ideologies and whatconstitutes as legitimate solidarity. As the works go onto later agree thatsocial and political movements are needed to challenge nationalistic thinkingthrough the use of non-violent institutional groundings and uprising in attemptto disrupt political loyalties, allegiances, and group identities. Suchanarchic ideologies of social disruption are later discussed in the work ofBadger, as she highlights the potential usage of social media and the Internetfor physical mobilization of cosmopolitan resistance, as well as, facilitatinguprisings from below. Such examples in the writing included anti-sweatshopcampaigns, democratic revolutions, and shifting conscience of the globalcommunity. As both Cheah and Badger discuss the anarchistic nature ofcosmopolitanism, this ideology is further built upon in the work of Graham Maddox.As he initially highlights cosmopolitanism’s love for mankind and the rejectionof state imposed thinking- his writing contrasts the work of the otherauthor’s, stating that ‘the [average] cosmopolitan’ is a pacifist at heart. Hiswork goes on to challenge the previous writing of Cheah and Badger,highlighting that while the global population has become more interconnected dueto globalization- this may have resulted in the rise of nationalistic ideologiesand xenophobia. His writing goes on to exemplify this concept by highlightingthe prominence of global terrorism and the impact this has had on minoritypopulations in Australia. As global consciousness has the potential to makepeople nervous and resentful, there may be a shift from cosmopolitan thinkingoften resulting in increased xenophobia with vulnerable groups becoming scapegoats for the public to inflict violence upon. Similar to the work of Cheah, he addresses the role of capitalism andneoliberalism in relation the power struggle with corporate or nationalisticpower often prevailing, resulting in the will of the people receding –addressing the masculine nature of Western dominant thought and hegemony. WhileMaddox’s work address cosmopolitanism in Australia, a nation that has followeda similar colonial narrative as Canada – his work has tied in closely to fellowtheorist, Jean-Francois Caron. While the work of Caron agrees with the othertheorists that cosmopolitanism can be seen as a superior to national patriotismin regards to the inclusion, she highlights that this idealistic moral postureof cosmopolitanism has no chance of replacing national identities. As shehighlights that while national identities are not static and remain intangiblethroughout time, it is through national narratives and collective mentalitiesthat circumstances are challenged and limits are reinterpreted. Similar to thework of Maddox her work highlights Canada’s cosmopolitan worldview in relationto the nation’s colonial history, adding that it was a distrust of Americanculture and a sense of ‘moral superiority’ that led to Canada’s nationalrhetoric being reinforced. While she highlights the nation’s identity as beinginherently anti-American, she also gives praise to Canada’s sense ofmulticulturalism – stating it as a success story, contrary to other countrieswhere such diversity often results in violence. This is later exemplified asshe goes on further proclaim that immigrants coming to Canada are welcomed tosociety and that inter-racial marriage serves as a benchmark for Canada’sopenness. However, her thoughts in relation to Canada’s rooted cosmopolitannature can be challenged due to this work being problematic, failing to accountfor the complexities of multiculturalism, the experiences of minorityindividuals, and the continued need for Canada to be more globallyconsciousness and welcoming of foreigners. The shortcomings and complexitiespresented within the work of the four cosmopolitan theorists can be furtherexemplified and expanded upon through an evaluation of Canadians society’sworldviews and realities in relation to the intake of Syrian refugees. AsCanada is proclaimed to be one of the most multicultural and globally consciousnations in the world, it is necessary for Canadians to reflect inward toquestion how we situate ourselves globally, as well as to critically examinethe ‘#refugeeswelcome’ initiative. Syrian Refugees in CanadaThe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that 960,000 refugees are currently in need of resettlement in a third country (Martin, 2016). These are refugees who, according to the UNHCR, can neither return to their country of origin nor integrate into their country of first asylum (Martin, 2016). Together, the international community has committed to resettle around 80,000 refugees each year with Canada resettling approximately 10% of this total (Government of Canada, 2017). The Canadian government’s current goal is to resettle between 8% and 12% of all refugees (Government of Canada, 2017). Several factors contributed to the Canadian public’s initial response to the Syrian refugee crisis, including public outcry for support following the death of Ayan Kurdi, a Syrian child who drown while travelling by boat from Turkey to Greece – a child of a family that had been refused resettlement to Canada; and, the 2015 national election serving as a platform for all prime ministerial candidates to debate the ideology of accepting refugees openly. Similar to the ideologies relating to media and the Internet presented in the article of Badger, this serves as an example of how cosmopolitan media has resulted in public conscientiousness and outcry. However, this also exemplifies the limitations of global citizenship presented by Maddox and Cheah as to how migration has become a political issue with bureaucrats, policy makers, and citizens (in a limited manner) determining who can and can’t be a citizen of a country or the world. At this time, Canadian citizens also wanted the federal government to match the rhetoric of Canadian identity as compassionate, openly engaged in the international community and open to newcomers.  The newlyelected government’s commitment to resettle Syrians was primarily driven by themomentum of the election, and later by the need to demonstrate the newgovernment’s capacity to swiftly implement promises. It is through this shiftin political being that Cheah’s theory of the state being made up of thecitizens may be illustrated due to the majority of Canadian voters presentingmore liberal or globally conscious values. The Canadian government furthercommitted to resettling more than 25,000 Syrian refugees specifically betweenNovember, 2015 and February, 2016 with commitments extending into 2017 (Governmentof Canada, 2017). To date, a total of 40,081 Syrian refugees have resettledacross 350 Canadian communities since the initiative was first introduced in2015 (Government of Canada, 2017). Of these Syrian refugees 21,876 areGovernment Assisted, meaning that the government will provide the refugee (andtheir family, if applicable) with accommodation, clothing, food, assistancefinding employment, and other resettlement assistance for one year or untilthey are able to support themselves (Government of Canada, 2017). A further3,931Syrian refugees were resettled as Blended Visa-Referred Refugees, beingselected by the UNHCR with further support being provided by the federalgovernment and private sponsors (Government of Canada, 2017). The remaining14,274 Syrian refugees are privately sponsored (Government of Canada, 2017). While thenumber of privately sponsored refugees has increased over recent years theCanadian government has decreased the number of Syrian refugees that areprivately sponsored, further limiting the number of refugees allowed toresettle in the country. It is through this permissive nature of allocating thenumber of citizens Canada allows within its borders, that the notion ofcosmopolitanism is challenged by nationalism. As the world is theorized to beinteracting on a global scale, the use of borders, immigration, and politicaldiscourse pertaining to the acceptance or bigotry towards Syrian refugeesremains problematic. This connects with both Badger and Cheah’s theories asthis highlights the role government plays in regulating global citizenship andmovement. Through disallowing privately sponsored refugees into the country,this top-down approach challenges the bottom-up outcry and mobilization toincrease the number of refugees coming into the country. While the governmentpresents the ‘#refugeeswelcome’ rhetoric, through limiting the number of totalrefugees permitted into the country this representation of ‘welcoming’ may bechallenged in a cosmopolitan context. With matching and arrivaltimes between the initial phase of the program from November 2015 to February2016 being quick, an unrealistic expectation for private individuals or groupswaiting to be matched with a new coming refugee family has resulted (Marwah, 2016).Now that the target of 25,000 Syrian Refugees has been met, the process hassignificantly slowed down, leaving various parties on a waiting list to providesponsorship (Marwah, 2016).  Other groups that were matched in thisprocess have still been waiting for refugees to arrive, with some groups beingstuck with empty rented apartments, have wasted resources, and are strugglingwith the sponsorship morale (Marwah, 2016). Additionally, further challengesexist keeping sponsors engaged and motivated as they may not be matched untilthe end of the year (Marwah, 2016). This can be associated with thearticle of Karen Badger as her theology highlights the need for individualconsciousness and a conscious civil society. Through citizens being disallowedfrom sponsoring a refugee, this may potentially discourage sponsorship andresult in a reduction of ‘cosmopolitan thinking’ – further encouraging ‘the pacifist’theorized by Graham Maddox. While there is a need for the Canadian Governmentto articulate the complexities and the timing of a resettlement initiative ofthis scale, this process of refugee intake needs to be re-evaluated. Withcomplex decision-making and political structures being overseen – increasedcommunication among partnering agencies, as well as, further patience andcommitment to support refugees is needed. There is also a need forCanadian society to reflect upon the nature of which the country acceptsrefugees. While there is a stark differencebetween the services and preconception of Syrian and non-Syrianrefugees, there is a need for increased attention as to the dualistic nature ofthe acceptance of refugees. Primarily this difference can be seen as Syrianrefugees who arrived after the Liberal government came to power do not – incontrast to refugees of other nationalities and previous Syrian refugees – haveto repay the government’s travel loan which enabled their journey to Canada(McMurdo, 2016). While the theory of Caron highlights a multicultural nation,full of welcoming and accepting individuals (as opposed to the USA), this doesnot accredit the challenges refugees may face upon re-settling. This may berelated to this two-tiered system of refugee intake, as the nation ‘being cosmopolitan’was quick to respond to the Syrian ‘crisis’ yet was not ‘globally conscious’ asto the needs and backgrounds of past refugees.Furthermore, while non-Syrianrefugees have arrived with debt and hundreds of cases to slowly make their waythrough the resettlement process, some Syrian refugees have been expedited andarrived in Canada with special treatment, loan free (Marwah, 2016). By putting forward ahelpful and empathetic view towards the Syrian population, the government haseffectively created two classes of refugees, disregarding fairness andequality towards all marginalized refugee groups. Others, including the privatesector and social services – have followed suit in offering various benefits tonewly arriving Syrians to Canada. Yet, this welcome has the effect of makinginvisible any other refugees (Marwah, 2016). With the recent terrorattacks throughout the world, and the resulting rhetoric of islamophobia, theinitiative to resettle Syrians to Canada has become an increasingly debatedtopic among Canadians. Similar to the work of Maddox, this notion ofuncertainty, fear, and xenophobia have been present in Canada in regards to theintake of refugees. Due to security in the resettlement processing has becominga point of public contention, the Liberal government has shared and updatedregular information/data to ease the fears of Canadian citizens. However,this has not limited the number of hate crimes and racist violence imposed onminority groups (refugee or not). As the nation fears uncertainty, and has beennegatively influenced by media portraying terroristic events abroad, the wayCanada situates itself within the global setting could become more consciousand aware of the limitation of such thinking. Also, disappointingly,settlement services in Canada have not yet received the same support from thegovernment as was offered in physically resettling the refugees to Canada (McMurdo, 2016). With a huge and rapid influx of refugees, settlementservices have been stretched beyond capacity, without sufficient resources toadequately address the refugees’ needs, or the time to invest in additionalfundraising (McMurdo, 2016).  As aresult of the scale of arrivals, enrolling the refugees in language classesand/or schools and allocating housing, along with other basicservices has proven challenging (McMurdo, 2016). Certain refugees have beenstaying in temporary accommodation for weeks longer than usual (McMurdo, 2016).Theprivate sector and civil society have played an active role in responding to the needs of the thousands ofSyrian arrivals and to fill this gap (McMurdo, 2016).  Further training isneeded for professionals to support this specific group of people and theirvaried needs, particularly government-assisted refugees, who have greater needsand vulnerabilities (McMurdo, 2016). Therefore, like the works of the theoristsdiscussed in the earlier half of the paper, there is a need for civilconsciousness and the support of non-government organizations and communitygroups to implement the services government falls short of providing. Throughthis anarchistic nature of cosmopolitanism and overall shared responsibility ofour fellow countrymen (and women) or ‘global neighbours’, the limitations ofnationalism and neoliberal globalization can be continually contested andreframed. By allowing individuals to takeownership of their behaviours on a domestic and international scale, thecosmopolitan revolution may continue to occur, further limiting thenationalistic fear and xenophobia shift the globe may current be seeing.  ConclusionAs the global populationcontinues to be more interlinked, the theology of cosmopolitanism will continueto change and be reframed through future years. While it may seem that the ‘globalcitizen’ is being challenged ‘the most’ in recent years due to shifts towardsnationalistic thinking and hate crimes increasing, the potential for globallyconscious, aware citizens needs to be promoted. While this may be best done ata grass-roots, individualistic level – the potential for positive change mayresult. With the rhetoric surrounding Canadians and Syrian refugees might not beingas ‘accepting’ as the government wants the nation to perceive it to be,increased education and interaction between Canadians and our newest refugee citizens(Syrian or not) yields the potential to break down the barriers of nationalism,further preventing ‘us’ from seeing the benefit of diversity and acceptance. BibliographyBadger, K. (2015). Cosmopolitanism and Globalization: A Project of Collectivity.Caron, J.-F. (2012). Rooted Cosmopolitanism in Canada and Quebec. NationalIdentities, 14(4), 351–366. http://doi.org/10.1080/14608944.2011.616954Cheah, P. (2006). Cosmopolitanism. Theory,culture & society, 23(2-3), 486-496.Government of Canada. (2017). #WelcomeRefugees: Key Figures. Retrievedfrom http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/milestones.aspMaddox, G. (2015). Cosmopolitanism. Social Alternatives, 34(1),3.Martin, S. F. (2016). Rethinking Protection of Those Displaced by Humanitarian Crises.TheAmerican Economic Review, 106(5), 446-450.Marwah, S. (2016, Summer). Syrianrefugees in Canada: lessons learned and insights gained. PloughsharesMonitor, 37(2), 9+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/ps/i.do?p=CPI&sw=w&u=uvictoria&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA459227943&asid=4c7546bee52ffbb9988d6f7497ecf8c7McMurdo, A. B. (2016). Causes andconsequences of Canada’s resettlement of Syrian refugees. Forced MigrationReview, 1(52), 82-84.Proctor, J. (2016). CBC-Angus Reid Institute poll: Canadians wantminorities to do more to ‘fit in’. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/poll-canadians-multiculturalism-immigrants-1.3784194Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more