[Mustang1]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Ok, stop using facts against me Mustang!

The difference is that the immigrants in the 1896-1914 period ( a well known 'surge') is that for better or worse the immigrants were basically forced to accept British North America and it's culture. Intergrate or suffer the consequences.

These days, for better or worse, we ask nothing of our immigrants. Pop over here from your Stone-age countries and do what you want, we don't want your loyalty, we don't expect it.

Commit crime before you become a citizen, that's fine.

Lie on your application, that's ok too.

In the days of the Dominion these guys either couldn't get in or got kicked out.

We were so backward in those days.

There are differences, agreed. But it's interesting to note the similarities and, in fact, the nativist sentiment could be such that an "Open Door vs. Selective Immigration" clash emerged in Canadian society, forced settlement was practices (ex. Doukhobors in Alberta) and violence (the Anti-Asiatic Riot of 1907) existed. This was all done, out of fear of a loss of Canadian/Western identity.

There are many problems - i agree - and these dearly need addressing, but many immigrants came and still arrive in Canada because of its society, culture, economy and politics and many on this thread are right, these very pull factors need to be protected and safeguarded. People want to live here - they need to learn about what made this place desirable to them and others in the first place.

[EyeBrock]

And I agree with you on this Mustang. What's different these days is the lack of expectation of intergration.

In the bad old days the immigrants, even the Doukhobors, wanted to fit in. Now, that's not the case. Nobody wants to fit in and I think that will have an impact on the future.

[Mustang1]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And I agree with you on this Mustang. What's different these days is the lack of expectation of intergration.

In the bad old days the immigrants, even the Doukhobors, wanted to fit in. Now, that's not the case. Nobody wants to fit in and I think that will have an impact on the future.

I don't think that's entirely true - ethnic enclaves were chastised at the turn of the 20th century in Toronto, Winnipeg and Victoria as many immigrants were perceived to be hiding out culturally in ethnic ghettos.

And the Doukhobors were actually targeted because they were perceived as not wanting to fit in - non-conformist beliefs like objecting to military service, living in communal families and refusing to swear allegiance to the Crown all provoked contemporary Anglo-Canadian hostility. In fact, when it came time to grant final title over lands, this very perception of not wanting to fit in, resulted in 1/2 of their Saskatchewan lands being confiscated by the government.

[EyeBrock]

They were accepted. A special case really. Most of the Ukrainians et al were well accepted. The Brits always made a case for very specific minorities. It's always amazed me being Irish.

[Mustang1]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

They were accepted. A special case really. Most of the Ukrainians et al were well accepted. The Brits always made a case for very specific minorities. It's always amazed me being Irish.

"They were accepted"? I'm not sure what you mean. Many groups - Chinese, Ukrainians, Jews, East Indians (remember the Komagata Maru incident), Enemy Aliens during WWI (again the Ukrainians) and anti-radical labor (based largely on ethnic/cultural issues) post WWI - fought for acceptance in a land that wasn't always welcoming (no judgment, just a fact). To say that it was ugly a century ago is an understatement.

[EyeBrock]

Small groups and reprehensible treatment. I don't disagree Mustang. But these are very different times. Anything goes, illegal or not.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Here's an article from the Toronto Star discussing how difficult it is for immigrants to get a job in Quebec.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... -newcomers

The article says Quebec needs the workers but won't give them a job. It says immigration has been steadily increased lately and is up to 55,000 a year for the province.

Actually Quebec is a have not province, is economically depressed and has been for a long time. It does not need the workers. The thing of it is immigration is dropped out from consideration by politicians, economists and intellectuals. It's just assumed to be working. So you have mass immigration into a have not province. That's the status quo for intellectuals in Canada here in the 21st Century.

The common sense of it is if there were labour shortages employers would be knocking on immigrants door to come work for them.

Montreal has awful unemployment at this time, 9.5% but also fewer people are even looking for a job than in Alberta. The labour force is at 66.7% of the working age population whereas the comparable figure for the peak in Calgary is 72.1%. (The figure is adjust for people over 64, is not directly from the Statistics Canada data)

Jean Charest is doing well, polling nicely. He is catering to the leftish Quebec vote, the community mentality, by spending on programs. In reality the place is a pressure cooker. People are poor and unemployed. It’s still unstable.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Small groups and reprehensible treatment. I don't disagree Mustang. But these are very different times. Anything goes, illegal or not.

I don't believe the times are that different, but society is now hamstrung by the Charter to exercise its more extreme knee jerk responses as well as its more logical responses.

[CommanderSock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

I won't say racist.

But you are all certianly xenophobic.

What do you say, then, about Mexico that does not allow immigration at all? They also prohibit the building of mosques and they do all of this openly and for the purpose of 'preserving Mexican culture'.

Edit: Japan also has highly restrictive immigration polices that require immigrants to adopt Japanese names and to speak all seven formality levels of Japanese fluently. Again, this is done to preserve Japanese culture.

Bigots, right?

Mexico isn't exactly a bastion of free thinking and progressiveness. A country that is only more racist and segregated after Brazil, enforces a strict social apartheid whereby white Spaniard/European ruling elite lord over the nation while poor peasant Indians are pushed out of the formal market into the black one, or worse out of the country northwards.

Japan's economy has stayed stagnant for the last 20 years. Their standard of living has fallen steadily since 1989 as well as their incomes.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=15174533

Sooooo.....





This whole sky is falling immigration debate isn't anything new. The article points out that this immigration is similar to that of the settlement of the new world. Does he forget that immigration to the Americas has never stopped since their discovery.

Does he not forget that with lack of emigration, poor countries begin to display bouts of resource nationalism which hurts developed countries almost exclusively?

[CommanderSock]

double post

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

And? Deplorable conditions to be sure - and the government, churches and the guilty should be held accountable but that doesn't mean genocide or systematic eradication. Go find a HISTORY book that concludes Canada was guilty of a "campaign of eradication" and quit making egregious ahistorical claims.

I think being dragged away from your parents at gunpoint to be experimented on and electrocuted to death crosses a line somewhere beyond deplorable. Forcing healthy children to sit amongst others infected with tuberculosis also does.

Credible source please.

[EyeBrock]

Residential schools were not alone in abusive treatment:

Over 100,000 British orphans and kids left by their parents were shipped off to Canada to be nothing more than slaves.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/ ... cle/897593

The Australians treated these poor kids no better.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... rudd_.html

You could be forgiven for only thinking the Natives were hard done to. That wheel squeaks very loudly. But hundreds of thousands of white, anglo-saxon kids faced the same or worse than Native kids and a good portion of this happened in Canada. Was that an attempt to 'eradicate a culture' too?
Seems like both native and white kids got treated pretty much the same in those days. Badly.

[EyeBrock]

Yep, and the tiny population that was here came from somewhere else too.

I doubt there is a country in the world that hasn't replaced a previous population group with a newer one. Survival of the fittest and all that.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Residential schools were not alone in abusive treatment:

Over 100,000 British orphans and kids left by their parents were shipped off to Canada to be nothing more than slaves.

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/ ... cle/897593

The Australians treated these poor kids no better.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... rudd_.html

You could be forgiven for only thinking the Natives were hard done to. That wheel squeaks very loudly. But hundreds of thousands of white, anglo-saxon kids faced the same or worse than Native kids and a good portion of this happened in Canada. Was that an attempt to 'eradicate a culture' too?
Seems like both native and white kids got treated pretty much the same in those days. Badly.

My dad was one of those orphans only he was lucky enough to be beaten, treated like shit and used as slave labour on farms in his own country.

[Dayseed]

I'm waiting for the "campaign of eradication" to get horribly morphed into "just a conference of top administrators"...