What's In a Name?

Those darn Canadians. Every once in a while they do something that makes us Americans shake our heads in utter fascination and proclaim, that "we can do that too!" The 'that' in question this time is probably something that we shouldn't be in a hurry to adopt much less even begin to implement because it can only lead to more problems. The case in question is in regards to a practice being implemented in Canada whereby if you have a 'common' last name or you are seeking to immigrate with a very common last name then your papers will be held up until such time that you choose a new name which is not so common but not too uncommon. Confused? So am I.

Apparently what happened is that Canadian immigration officials realized that many Sikh immigrants coming to Canada were immigrating with virtually the same name. In Sikh society it is fairly common to give a boy the last name Singh and a girl the last name Kaur. As a result, there are many Singhs and Kaurs out there who are about as close relatives as Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton. What Canadian officials are hoping is that by enforcing a requirement to have immigrants change their names, it will lead to far easier times for everyone. There was an example of a case where one company had three Ranjeet Singhs, none of whom was related to the others. While this can lead to confusion and potential problems in terms of identification within the company, it basically boils down to the fact that this is the name that this individual has grown up with so why force a change.

What is even more distressing in this case is the fact that it seemingly isn't being applied in a fair manner. For example, if John Smith were to immigrate to Canada, he would not likely be requested to change his name though it is privy to the same requirements. Now some people are shouting that this screams racism and though I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to Canadian immigration officials, it's hard not to think this when you hear of such cases. Now I'll be the first to admit that it can be a problem when dealing with people with similar names. In one office I worked at, we had several Bill's, a number of Tom's, and interestingly enough, a pair of Jay's. It sounds like some demented form of Poker or at least a scene from "Attack of the Clones" but it wasn't.

Obviously these characters (myself included) had different last names but it could be confusing when you were in a situation referring to Tom and you weren't quite sure which one. When you have full names that are identical, it can be a real challenge keeping things straight. Still, to me this doesn't justify requesting that people consider changing their names before they'll be granted immigrant status within a country. There are those who argue that other ethnic groups have modified their last names to make it easier for their peers to pronounce or refer to them but these changes were largely voluntary. In the case of the Singhs of Canada, they are seeking to make it more of a requirement than an option.

Requesting someone to change their name, even if it is for the purposes of differentiating one from the other, is close to asking someone to change their identity. If you've grown up with a certain name it seems fairly reasonable that you would want to live with that name for the rest of your life. If you have something against your name you'll change it anyways or if you are a part of the Witness Protection Program then you'll want to change your name or risk getting whacked by the angry mob! Whatever the case, making it a requirement is not the way to effect change. Keeping it a voluntary choice will likely be more effective and though there will be quite a few who opt out of changing their name, it will be equitable. Afterall, isn't it supposed to be a democracy up there too?