The future of Canada through immigration

[tracy]

Re: RE: The future of Canada through immigration

"The whole country, especially urban areas, are just fragments of foreign countries with no real uniform Canadian identity or culture."

Exactly. I've lived within an hour and a half of Toronto all my life and the change has been huge when visiting there. There is a real sense of tribalism, ghettoization - choose what term you will - and little sense that the city is anything but nominally Canadian.
And this change has happened rapidly. What lies ahead for a country that openly invites difference and separation within its borders? We'll get what we deserve.

Living in the city I didn't feel that way. When I went to work, there were nurses and docs and patients from around the world. When I was there we had a couple sets of parents who wanted to pick the ethnicity of their baby's nurses and they were quickly shot down, one with the (Jamaican born) charge nurse telling them "This is Canada. If you want to have only nurses from your country, you're gonna have to go back there!". Especially when SARS happened, people seemed to have a real community attitude. I used to volunteer at immigrant services doing English classes and met a lot of people very eager to be "real" Canadians. My neighbour was thrilled when I told her I learned In Flanders' Fields in school and her son was learning it too because that made it something "real" Canadians did.

Most neighbourhoods in Toronto have already gone through at least a couple of cultural takeovers. My neighbourhood was originally really Eastern-European, then some Greeks, some Portugese, then the Koreans, then the Arabs. They are all there today along with many other groups. I used to alternate felafel, goulash and Korean BBQ for takeout. It's only natural for groups to first settle among like people for practical reasons (language, family, religion) but that changes over time. Their children will be able to integrate much more than they could. The Chinese didn't all stay in Chinatown and the Greeks ventured out from the Danforth. My Dutch grandma's family moved to a Menonite community cause they were Menonite and didn't want to integrate with any godless heathens. Well of my aunts and uncles and cousins, none of them still live in that community and none of them speak Dutch well if at all. I don't see why things will be so different today.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: The future of Canada through immigration

I'd just define multiculturalism as being able to maintain your cultural identity while becoming a Canadian. To me it means you don't have to renounce your heritage and emulate the British to become one of us. Certainly people won't be able to keep EVERYTHING about their old culture here in Canada (wife beating may be acceptable elsewhere, but it's still illegal in Canada, racism is acceptable elsewhere but should not be here in Canada, etc). But, if they want to continue going to temple rather than church or celebrate Ramadan rather than Xmas, I really don't see the problem. I've already thrown 2 Canadian Thanksgiving parties down here and no one has complained about it yet, so even Americans are pretty tolerant

This is probably the primary reason multiculturalism was implemented and I have no problem with the cultural identity part.

1) But at some point politicans recognized that this system of diversity could be used to deliver the vote. It is easier and much more strategic to pay certain influential individuals to recruit their fellow members. In return politicans provided money,not for the innocuous system of cultural preservation you describe, but as a reward for a political favour. This was done through the cultural and community grants system.

2) Also as immigration has increased many radicals and militants have joined the tide. These are individuals who are more heavily involved in cultural affairs and religious life and so they became the political motivators and gatekeepers for their respective groups.

One cannot understand Canadian multiculturalism without points 1 & 2. It is basically the same system of colonial management the British used in India.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: The future of Canada

Tracy: Sorry it was not my intention to put words into your mouth. This is a very tricky and sticky situation we have here so treading lightly is advised.

With respect, I don't agree with you that this country needs immigrants. Populations can never be on the increase and this earth cannot hold many more people. Again, Canada does not need more immigrants to sustain our way of life. I believe that is a myth propagated by people with an agenda (I'm not suggesting you have an agenda).

Infact, I think its healthy for Canada and the rest of the world to experience a population decline.

To put our immigration policies in the same sentence as genocide is ridiculous Laughing .

Its there in black and white. To replace an ethnic population with a different ethnic population IS genocide. White flight is alive and well across the country, especially in urban and suburban areas.

Don't worry, I'm not offended at all. It takes a lot to actually do that

If we don't need immigration, how do you think the older generation is going to be cared for? Society can't care for them without having enough workers. The country's economy needs workers/consumers/tax payers or the whole thing comes to a halt. CPP comes from tax money.

Genocide is the INTENTIONAL replacement of one ethnic group by another. There is no way the UN would say a bunch of different ethnic groups (cause coloured people are from some VERY different groups) legally moving to a traditionally white area is genocide. White flight is really more about wealth than race IMO. Bad urban areas won't keep prosperous members of their predominant ethnic group either. White people will still be drawn to urban areas for good jobs. When I go back to Canada, it will be to Toronto or Vancouver not a whiter area because the employment and educational opportunities for me there can't be beat. Plus, I'd be bored stiff if I ever moved back to my hometown

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: The future of Canada through immigration

I'd just define multiculturalism as being able to maintain your cultural identity while becoming a Canadian. To me it means you don't have to renounce your heritage and emulate the British to become one of us. Certainly people won't be able to keep EVERYTHING about their old culture here in Canada (wife beating may be acceptable elsewhere, but it's still illegal in Canada, racism is acceptable elsewhere but should not be here in Canada, etc). But, if they want to continue going to temple rather than church or celebrate Ramadan rather than Xmas, I really don't see the problem. I've already thrown 2 Canadian Thanksgiving parties down here and no one has complained about it yet, so even Americans are pretty tolerant

This is probably the primary reason multiculturalism was implemented and I have no problem with the cultural identity part.

1) But at some point politicans recognized that this system of diversity could be used to deliver the vote. It is easier and much more strategic to pay certain influential individuals to recruit their fellow members. In return politicans provided money,not for the innocuous system of cultural preservation you describe, but as a reward for a political favour. This was done through the cultural and community grants system.

2) Also as immigration has increased many radicals and militants have joined the tide. These are individuals who are more heavily involved in cultural affairs and religious life and so they became the political motivators and gatekeepers for their respective groups.

One cannot understand Canadian multiculturalism without points 1 & 2. It is basically the same system of colonial management the British used in India.

And I have no problem dealing with those. That's not to say that I think multiculturalism as a whole is wrong or that it's a threat to me as a white Canadian. Radicalism needs to be dealt with, especially in today's world. That can only be done with the community.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: The future of Canada

Maybe the Canadian government should have promoted birth rates and offered incentives to new families in order to cope with a face-paced society. .

Quebec has done that for some time and it just isn't enough. No government incentive could make me give birth to a child if it isn't something I want to do. That's a life changing event that should only be reserved for the truly comitted, not those looking to get a couple of bucks out of the government.

 

[Canucker]

Re: RE: The future of Canada

If we don't need immigration, how do you think the older generation is going to be cared for? Society can't care for them without having enough workers. The country's economy needs workers/consumers/tax payers or the whole thing comes to a halt. CPP comes from tax money.

Tracy, again, I don't think its true to say that with our current population levels that we really need to invite more people to come and build this country. The answer to caring for our elderly is science and medicine. Both Canada and the United States are disallowing breakthrough drugs and research (such as stem-cell research) which could mean the world for so many Canadians. I think we can all agree that Canada's healthcare system is in need of some help.

Additionally, immigrants from Africa and Asia aren't helping the healthcare system when they bring deadly diseases with them. This is not racism, but its true. Think about how SARS or HIV got to North America.

Genocide is the INTENTIONAL replacement of one ethnic group by another. There is no way the UN would say a bunch of different ethnic groups (cause coloured people are from some VERY different groups) legally moving to a traditionally white area is genocide. White flight is really more about wealth than race IMO. Bad urban areas won't keep prosperous members of their predominant ethnic group either. White people will still be drawn to urban areas for good jobs. When I go back to Canada, it will be to Toronto or Vancouver not a whiter area.

Our government is intentially inviting people to come to the country. The Canadian people were never asked, and if they were the answer would have been a definate no.

White flight is not rich people moving out of the area. They may be a small group, but from personal experience with family and friends, they move because of the crime and the pure rapid change Canadian cities are going through in terms of crime and ethnic makeup thanks to immigration. Thats why my folks moved 200km north of Toronto. I know their friends have also done the same. Infact, there's nobody left that I know from my childhood that has stayed in the city. Certainly none of them are wealthy people.

Do the cities Barrie, Newmarket, Midland, Muskoka, Oakville and Holland Landing come to mind?

Edit: Sorry, forgot to include Collingwood. These are all personal examples of people I know who are white and fled.


Edit again: A little off-topic: I'd like to commend the Canadian government in its iniatives in it's non-smoking campaigns.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: The future of Canada

Tracy, again, I don't think its true to say that with our current population levels that we really need to invite more people to come and build this country. The answer to caring for our elderly is science and medicine. Both Canada and the United States are disallowing breakthrough drugs and research (such as stem-cell research) which could mean the world for so many Canadians. I think we can all agree that Canada's healthcare system is in need of some help.

Additionally, immigrants from Africa and Asia aren't helping the healthcare system when they bring deadly diseases with them. This is not racism, but its true. Think about how SARS or HIV got to North America.
Our government is intentially inviting people to come to the country. The Canadian people were never asked, and if they were the answer would have been a definate no.

White flight is not rich people moving out of the area. They may be a small group, but from personal experience with family and friends, they move because of the crime and the pure rapid change Canadian cities are going through in terms of crime and ethnic makeup thanks to immigration. Thats why my folks moved 200km north of Toronto. I know their friends have also done the same. Infact, there's nobody left that I know from my childhood that has stayed in the city. Certainly none of them are wealthy people.

Health care needs help, trust me I know (I'm a nurse). But who pays for healthcare? Tax payers. Old people don't work and they use a TREMENDOUS amount of services in the healthcare system. The majority of the health care resources that are spent on Canadians are spent in the months right before their deaths. That can't be paid for unless we have younger, healthier, working Canadians to foot the bill. A country with more retirees than workers can't survive unless the retirees are willing to give up their benefits (like pensions and healthcare). Plus, healthcare needs workers. Canada is incapable of producing enough nurses to meet its demands. That's a fact. We need nurses from other countries. The Philippines is one of the only countries in the world with a surplus of nurses that trains them in English, so we'd be idiots not to take them.

I can't put too much blame on immigrants for health problems because they are just as likely to come from tourists or travelling Canadians like me. The second flare up of SARS can be blamed on Canadian docs and administrators who wouldn't listen to their nurses (2 of whom paid for that with their lives by the way). You can't prevent diseases from entering the country unless you completely seal it off from the world and that's just unrealistic.

The Canadian government is intentionally seeking immigrants and only certain types but their requirements have nothing to do with ethnicity or race, so it can't be called a genocidal policy.

When I said wealth, I didn't mean Richie Rich or anything. I just mean that those with the means to move to a better neighbourhood will always do it regardless of their race. Coloured people of means aren't going to stay in a crime ridden area and more than white people. That's not about race.

 

[Psyrus1]

RE: The future of Canada

Interesting.

I think the biggest challenge on the board is seperating skin colour and values.

I don't feel particularly threated be asians or indians or whoever moving next door, when they're bringing their kids to the baseball game, taking an active role to intergrate into the community, volunteering, and generally trying to embrace canadiana with open arms.

I *do* have a problem with foreigners (including white foreigners) who live on a plane of existance removed from the world around them. I've met Russians, Swedes, Frenchmen, etc who moved to Canada and looked down their noses at "lowly canadians." This simply isn't a debate between whether we want white people or coloured people in this country. Its whether we want pro-canadians or aloof (or even anti) canadians representing the future of our country.

Any thoughts?

 

[tracy]

Psyrus I could not agree more with you on that.

 

[shannon]

We as Canadians need to keep up the immigration levels to maintain our population, no doubt about it. As a multiethnic country, we should keep encouraging immigrants from all corners of the globe to come settle here, provided they are screened extensively prior to their arrival, as all immigrants should be regardless of country of origin.

Once they arrive, I don't think it's in our best interest to use a multicultural approach with our new immigrants. We should have an assimilation policy or a "melting pot" approach where the new immigrants feel welcome into their new country and embrace our culture. This has worked well for the US, why not have it work for us as well?

 

[Kreskin]

What does assimilation look like? We already have our official languages. What next? You can't follow/practise another religion? You must exchange the head dress for a crown?

 

[Canucker]

We as Canadians need to keep up the immigration levels to maintain our population, no doubt about it. As a multiethnic country, we should keep encouraging immigrants from all corners of the globe to come settle here, provided they are screened extensively prior to their arrival, as all immigrants should be regardless of country of origin.

Once they arrive, I don't think it's in our best interest to use a multicultural approach with our new immigrants. We should have an assimilation policy or a "melting pot" approach where the new immigrants feel welcome into their new country and embrace our culture. This has worked well for the US, why not have it work for us as well?

It's a myth to say that mass immigration has worked for the United States or any other western country in the world for that matter. The US is essentially still racially segregated and those from the poorer areas thrive on mugging, attacking, mudering, robbing and doing god knows what else to the people from the middle-cast areas.

It has not worked in France. Remember last years riots?
It has not worked in Canada. Look at the state of some of our cities. Minorities receive special treatment over white Canadians.
It has definately not worked in the UK. People are disenfranchised with the state of things there and even secretly voting for the Brtitish National Party now. Their country also has racial riots frequently.
It has not worked in Germany. Again, areas where minorities are generally lower the standard of living and property values.

Tracy, I know where you are coming from regarding the need to fill positions with young faces. If that was really something the government was trying to fufill, why the hell are they allowed to bring their families over also? That basically cancels it out. Incidentially, I heard about one guy using that system to bring over over 170 extended family members I believe from India or Pakistan.


The biggest problem of the whole multicultural issue in Canada is it happened so rapidly. There were all of a sudden hundreds of thousands of immigrants most from the third world forced upon Canadians. Especially Canadians who live in larger cities and especially Toronto.

Now we're toying with what made this country great and that was the people who built it. There's no guarantee that these millions of people from third world countries who just appeared here over-night as perm. residents and citizens are going to keep that tradition going. In face, I know Canada will never be the same and it will probably get worse as these immigrants age.

 

[cortex]

<SNIP: If you don't have anything contructive to say, don't post.>

 

[tracy]

Tracy, I know where you are coming from regarding the need to fill positions with young faces. If that was really something the government was trying to fufill, why the hell are they allowed to bring their families over also? That basically cancels it out. .

I don't know that most immigrants do this. Most of Canada's immigrants are not coming in as refugees. They are skilled workers, entrepeneurs, etc. A lot of immigrants I knew in BC joked that the initials for the province stood for Bring Cash because their immigration was only permitted thanks to the money they had and the businesses they opened (that had to hire Canadian citizens of course). Most of the immigrant nurses I knew did not come with their families. They tended to wind up married to Canadians.

You look at immigration and only see the bad things. A couple of bad incidents don't mean the whole thing was a failure imo. You say we're toying with what made this country great... Well, part of what made this country great was immigration. I'm sure the English weren't thrilled when waves of Irish or Italian or Eastern European immigrants came to Canada either. They probably lowered property values and had lower standards of living and contributed to crime. They probably took over whole neighbourhoods, causing the English to move elsewhere. I know Canadians weren't interested in lettting Jews come to this country for some time too. They were probably concerned with preserving our traditional makeup. Point taken. Yet somehow that happened and we stayed Canadian anyways. We survived. Those different groups became real Canadians too at some point. No one would think someone was unCanadian for eating spaghetti today. It won't be any different for the newer immigrant groups. There will be growing pains with any kind of change, but that doesn't mean you quit changing.

As much as people like to complain about Toronto or Vancouver, I'd live there over whiter cities like Saskatoon or Edmonton any day. Part of their appeal is their diversity. You just can't get good Morroccan food everywhere you know . Toronto is a better representation of the world as a whole than you'll ever experience in Lethbridge. Some people don't like that, I do.

 

[tamarin]

The last figures I saw stated only 23% of immigrants are skilled migrants. The rest are refugees and family reunification plan members. Far from the stated goals of Canada's immigration department.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: The future of Canada through immigration

The last figures I saw stated only 23% of immigrants are skilled migrants. The rest are refugees and family reunification plan members. Far from the stated goals of Canada's immigration department.

Not according to government figures.

For 2004 Canada accepted a little more than 235 000 immigrants as permanent residents. 133 000 or 56% were economic immigrants (meaning skilled workers, business immigrants or live in caregivers). Skilled workers alone made up over 113 000 (which is about 48%). Refugees made up less than 33 000 of our immigrants that year (about 14%). Another 62 000 or so were let in as part of the family class, the bulk of which were domestic partners or children.

These figures are available at immigration Canada's website. Go to this link http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/index-2.html#statistics

and click on

Statistics/Reference
Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview – Permanent and Temporary Residents

2004
>> Adobe® Acrobat format, size: 1495 K

There is a nice graph of it on page 11 and the actual numbers on page 2

 

[I think not]

First of all I would like to say this has been an excellent thread. Varied opinions and very civil. Congrats to all, I enjoyed reading it.

One issue I have noticed that hasn’t come up in regards to a multicultural approach, the one that has “evolved” into something more than it’s intent. The negative aspects of multiculturalism (as defined by Europe, perhaps less so in Canada) is affording “groups”, rights above and beyond the rights of an individual.

When a “group” obtains rights that supersede that of the individual, there is a dangerous precedent taking place. There is an inherent danger affording rights to a “group” simply because you belong in it. Hence anyone outside this group does not have those rights. How does a multicultural society see equality and tolerance in this? There are many examples of this in Canada and a plethora of it in Europe.

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

First of all I would like to say this has been an excellent thread. Varied opinions and very civil. Congrats to all, I enjoyed reading it.

One issue I have noticed that hasn’t come up in regards to a multicultural approach, the one that has “evolved” into something more than it’s intent. The negative aspects of multiculturalism (as defined by Europe, perhaps less so in Canada) is affording “groups”, rights above and beyond the rights of an individual.

When a “group” obtains rights that supersede that of the individual, there is a dangerous precedent taking place. There is an inherent danger affording rights to a “group” simply because you belong in it. Hence anyone outside this group does not have those rights. How does a multicultural society see equality and tolerance in this? There are many examples of this in Canada and a plethora of it in Europe.

Are you referring to "group" as a race? Do rights of homosexuals apply? And if so, how is this dangerous to a heterosexual individual? If you mean solely a culture, then I kind of see where you are going with this.

 

[I think not]

Are you referring to "group" as a race? Do rights of homosexuals apply? And if so, how is this dangerous to a heterosexual individual? If you mean solely a culture, then I kind of see where you are going with this.

Rights of homosexuals do not apply because I have never heard of a homosexual movement that is fighting for any "special" rights, they only seek to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. In other words, being afforded the same right as every individual.

Race may apply to a certain extent, although I am a bit ambivalent on this one. There is a law in the US (not sure what the issue is in Canada) referred to as Affirmative Action. This law requires businesses to hire a certain percentage of its workforce from the minority communities. I say I am ambivalent, because I acknowledge the racism in the 50's and 60's didn't look favorably upon minorities. But this law expires at some point when these minorities, in the eyes of the government, are being treated fairly.

And yes I am referring to cultural issues, which obviously include religious practices.

 

[Caleb-Dain Matton]

Are you referring to "group" as a race? Do rights of homosexuals apply? And if so, how is this dangerous to a heterosexual individual? If you mean solely a culture, then I kind of see where you are going with this.

Rights of homosexuals do not apply because I have never heard of a homosexual movement that is fighting for any "special" rights, they only seek to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. In other words, being afforded the same right as every individual.

Race may apply to a certain extent, although I am a bit ambivalent on this one. There is a law in the US (not sure what the issue is in Canada) referred to as Affirmative Action. This law requires businesses to hire a certain percentage of its workforce from the minority communities. I say I am ambivalent, because I acknowledge the racism in the 50's and 60's didn't look favorably upon minorities. But this law expires at some point when these minorities, in the eyes of the government, are being treated fairly.

And yes I am referring to cultural issues, which obviously include religious practices.

I agree with you that the workforce hiring of minorities (just because they are minorities) is unfair. However, the rights associated with religion is a very gray area. I do believe though that everyone is entitle to their own beliefs without fear (ie, 16th and 17th century Europe was a mess).