Found this post on another forum and it led to some interesting debate:
I got very bored and started looking up immigration stats(yes i know im pathetic) and i eventually got to Canada and it was quite interesting as the pattern of immigration is extremely different to Australia or New Zealand. The MASSIVE difference was how few British immigrants Canada takes, i think it was around 4500-6000 depending on which particular year.
Thats out of a programme of 200k-250k. While in Australia in 2005 we granted permanent residency to 29,280 British immigrants. While we take in very few immigrants from Pakistan, Iran or Romania. Which were all in the top 10 for Canada.
Im just remembering off the top of my head. i couldnt be bothered to go hunt for the stats right now. later i will. We also take in lots of New Zealanders - for the obvious reason they are right next door. Also lots of South Africans. Both Australia and Canada take in lots of Chinese, Indians and Philipinos.
What do you think of the Canadian programme? I think the Australian programme has improved in the sense we are getting more Anglo immigrants from the UK, New Zealand, South Africa. Also significant numbers added up from Zimbabwe, US, Rep. of Ireland and Canada too. This is because these groups blend in easily and there is virtually no culture clash. The prob with non European migration is that the cultures could clash severely(especially with muslim migrants) but also others.
What ive liked about Canadian immigration history is that you got a much more diverse European programme - lots of Ukrainians, French, Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch, Portugeuse, Polish etc. Australia is dominantly British/Irish(approx 70%) with sizeable numbers of Greeks and Italians. But, pretty much the other European groups are tiny.