Racial Diversity proven to ruin nations

[Guest Manny]

History is an opinion now?

Really.

[g_bambino]

History is an opinion now?

Really.

Not really.

[-TSS-]

I must say that I have never heard of any stories about Canada having preferred whites only when it came to immigration. Australia is notorious in that respect as they followed such policies right up until the 1970's.

[Guest American Woman]

I must say that I have never heard of any stories about Canada having preferred whites only when it came to immigration. Australia is notorious in that respect as they followed such policies right up until the 1970's.

Did you read the source I cited - which is the Canadian government site on immigration?? Just because you never "heard it" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'll repeat from that post again:

Access from countries other than those that belonged to the “old” Commonwealth, the United States, and Europe was severely restricted, because the Liberals under Mackenzie King and his successor, Louis St. Laurent, were not prepared to abolish Canada’s racist immigration policy. The nominal credit for banishing racism from Canada’s immigration policy belongs to the Progressive Conservatives, who toppled the Grits in the federal election of 10 June 1957....

That's up until the 60's, not too terribly different from Australia.

[dre]

You need to look at what really drives immigration, and its ECONOMICS not anything else.

We let in the right ammount of immigrants to maintain a growth economy. If you really wanted to destroy our nation you would STOP doing this, and let the population dwindle due to negative birthrates.

If whites want to protect their nations/culture/identity then then should f__ck without birth control once in a while.

[-TSS-]

There is a correlation between birth-rates and education. Many immigrants from third world countries have a far lower birth-rate than in their original countries.

[Yukon Jack]

Not true, Canada did just fine with multiculturalism for decades. In our golden years there was an expectation that, although practising your own cultural was tolerated to an extent, you were expected to embrace the basic tenets of Canadian society. Those are the things we all agreed to uphold and protect. But today that's gone, replaced with laissez faire liberalism. Now out come the loud mouthed, intolerant types who want to turn this country into a mirror of their own backwards homelands. And we allow them a platform, and even the right to vote for it. What ruins nations is the attitude that anything goes.

Manny, it is not the idea or the fact of multi-culturalism that ruins Canada, it is the fact that the government financially supports and by taxation makes all citizens of Canada support diversity, that should be the financial responsibility of those who support multi-culturalism, but only if it it does not affect their wallets.

I am an immigrant. I never wanted the government to finance the teaching my children the language that is MY mother tongue. If any immigrant wants to have their children to carry on with their nationalistic tradition, it is THEIR responsibility.

I love diversity. I love going to restaurants and sample and enjoy foods I could never create. I love listening to music of lands that I have never seen or will ever see. I enjoy watching dances of other countries, and I devote two weeks of my time as a retired person, to visit as many national pavilions of our own "FOLKLARAMA" here in Winnipeg, as I can.

Financed out of my own pocket, of course!

[jacee]

Proof, please.

Lots of evidence for that, since it's just part of our history.

The “White Canada” Policy

Canada’s history of immigration policies makes evident the way that the current Canadian population has been an actively racialized construct. For example, in the 1920s, Canada’s immigration objective was to attract more British and American immigrants, as well as immigrants from the“preferred countries” of central and northern Europe(Hawkins, 2000 p. 26). According to Mackey, “up until the Second World War, when most immigration ceased, Canada had a strict hierarchy of preferred racial groups for immigration” (Mackey, 2002, p. 33). Hawkins (2000) describes these practices even more specifically. She says, “elements of restriction, directed first against the Chinese and later against all potential non-white immigrants, were present in [Canadian] immigration legislation from the 1880s onwards. The power to exclude would-be immigrants in certain categories and of certain origins, on which the White Canada policy was based, was laid down in the Immigration Act of 1910” (p. 16).

For the first 100 years of Canada’s official existence, immigration policies were explicitly racialized. It was only in the 1960s that immigration policy in Canada was changed to allow immigration from non-European countries.

How they kept Canada almost lily white

It is not a pleasant chapter in our history. It involves no boldly stated policy of the kind that goes into the school textbooks.

There was nothing public about it, as with the "Keep Australia White" policy. Rather it was a back-room effort, almost entirely successful, to "discourage" the many thousands of American and West Indian blacks who might otherwise have moved to Canada. have moved to Canada. There was -- as government correspondence in Ottawa records correspondence in Ottawa records now makes clear--a long, long series of letters exchanged among immigration authorities worried about how to be functionally anti-black without black without seeming anti-black.

A hundred years of immigration to Canada.

Immigration Act 1910. This Act gave the government enormous discretionary power to regulate immigration through Orders in Council. Section 38 allowed the government to prohibit landing of immigrants under the "continuous journey" rule, and of immigrants "belonging to any race deemed unsuited

to the climate or requirements of Canada, or of immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character".

Black Oklahoman farmers developed an interest in moving to Canada to flee increased racism at home. A number of boards of trade and the Edmonton Municipal Council called on Ottawa to prevent black immigration. In 1911 an order in council was drafted prohibiting the landing of "any immigrant belonging to the Negro race, which race is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada".

Edited April 15, 2012 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Race and ethnicity may correlate well with Canada's historic exclusions, but there was probably a more relevant economic consideration as described here:

In general, the United States and Canada have had similar immigration policies during their histories, and both countries have accepted large and increasingly diverse numbers of immigrants. From the beginning, however, the United States had a much more diverse population in terms of ethnicity and race than Canada, and many more immigrants have chosen to settle in the United States than in Canada. While the ethnic makeup of the United States was changing drastically at the beginning of the twentieth century, Canada still had a rather homogeneous population made up of people of British and French origin. This was due in part to perceived greater opportunities in the United States and a Canadian government that encouraged farmers to immigrate but did not have a need for industrial laborers.

http://immigration-online.org/401-canada-vs-united-states-as-immigrant-destinations.html

[jacee]

Race and ethnicity may correlate well with Canada's historic exclusions, but there was probably a more relevant economic consideration as described here:

In general, the United States and Canada have had similar immigration policies during their histories, and both countries have accepted large and increasingly diverse numbers of immigrants. From the beginning, however, the United States had a much more diverse population in terms of ethnicity and race than Canada, and many more immigrants have chosen to settle in the United States than in Canada. While the ethnic makeup of the United States was changing drastically at the beginning of the twentieth century, Canada still had a rather homogeneous population made up of people of British and French origin. This was due in part to perceived greater opportunities in the United States and a Canadian government that encouraged farmers to immigrate but did not have a need for industrial laborers.

http://immigration-online.org/401-canada-vs-united-states-as-immigrant-destinations.html

Ya ... they just didn't want to come to Canada.

That's why Canada put a racial exclusion in its immigration law in 1910, not mentioned in your link.

It's apparent some Canadians aren't aware of Canada's selective racial immigration past.

This information is for them, not to start one of your US VS Canada p'ng contests, bc.

Edited April 15, 2012 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Ya ... they just didn't want to come to Canada.

That's why Canada put a racial exclusion in its immigration law in 1910, , not mentioned in your link.

Sorry, perhaps I missed it, but where can we read the actual Immigration Act of 1910? I would like to see the actual "cracker" language....in French and English!

More to my point, there was a direct underlying economic reason why "Negro" slaves went to America...they were not emigres per se.

Edited April 15, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[g_bambino]

For the first 100 years of Canada's official existence, immigration policies were explicitly racialized. It was only in the 1960s that immigration policy in Canada was changed to allow immigration from non-European countries.

Again: what is the basis for this claim? There was no actual "White Canada policy", and no Immigration Act 1910; one link says about the Immigration Act 1906 that "The categories of 'prohibited' immigrants were expanded", but doesn't expand on what exactly those categories were; and the Order-in-Council that supposedly prohibited the landing of "any immigrant belonging to the Negro race" doesn't mean only "white" people were allowed to immigrate, let alone the point you neglected to include in your quote: "The order was never proclaimed."

That's all a deviation, anyway. All the above mentioned points, quite apart from the question of their validity, are related to pre-World War II, and you spoke specifically about the period from after the close of the Second World War until Trudeau was appointed as prime minister. The best you've got so far is what someone else raised for you: a vague reference to a selective (but not specifically "white only") immigration policy of the Mackenzie King government that was gone by 1948.

[cybercoma]

It's not even contested in the historiography that Canada had an exclusionary immigration policy throughout the first half of the 20th century. Hell, even JS Woodsworth wrote a book called Strangers Within Our Gates (1906?) that wasn't the least bit controversial. In it, he outlined the various races of peoples that could be brought to Canada to settle the West and pretty much ranked them in order of preference. They genuinely believed at the time that there was more variation between races than within races. We know now that this isn't the case, but they were still racist then. They thought they were doing good by being racist.

[cybercoma]

I searched for that book to see if I got the title and date right. Turns out U of T actually has it archived in full online. It has no copyright, so you can read the entire thing for yourself if you're so inclined.

http://archive.org/details/strangerswithino00wooduoft

Woodsworth, I should note, was arguing for people to accept all of the "foreigners" that had come to Canada. He wasn't trying to be exclusive. Nevertheless, for being one of the most progressive men in Canada at the time, you can still see the racist common sentiment that plays out in his work vis-a-vis the way he ranks foreigners in order of preference.

[g_bambino]

It's not even contested in the historiography that Canada had an exclusionary immigration policy throughout the first half of the 20th century.

It's the second half of the century and not just racist but "whites only" that jacee mentioned specifically.

[ed.: sp]

Edited April 16, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

It's the second half of the century and not just racist but "whites only" that jacee mentioned specifically.

[ed.: sp]

Then I'm not really sure what she's talking about. We started getting quite a few "non-white" foreigners in the early part of the second half of the century, particularly doctors and nurses.

There certainly was a number of allophone immigrants from Europe (ie, Ukrainians) just before WWI and just after WWII. They wouldn't have been considered "white" by Canadians then.

Visible minorities, save for the Chinese used for the railroads (I don't need to mention the laws passed to keep them out), didn't really begin coming into Canada in any great number until the early 70s I believe. The reason for this was that the 1952 Immigration Act (I may have the year wrong), set strict quotas on "non-whites" and made British and French subjects "preferred" categories. This was changed sometime in the early 70s or possibly the late 60s, when these racial categories were eliminated. The argument was re-framed in terms of keeping out people that would need to be supported by the state through our social welfare programs. Those programs obviously weren't much of a consideration in 1952. Jacee's not wrong to interpret the immigration law as she has. White people were quite literally "preferred" until the early 70s. That's the exact wording that they used.

[g_bambino]

The reason for this was that the 1952 Immigration Act (I may have the year wrong), set strict quotas on "non-whites" and made British and French subjects "preferred" categories.

I can't find the text of the act itself, but I do see references to quotas. Still, that's not "white only".

[bush_cheney2004]

...Visible minorities,

This laughable term is evidence enough of the preference for "white people".

[cybercoma]

I can't find the text of the act itself, but I do see references to quotas. Still, that's not "white only".

1952 Immigration Act

In 1952, the government passed a new Immigration Act. Although Canada had certainly changed in significant ways since earlier immigration acts, the 1952 legislation did not mark a significant departure. The legislation still provided a mere framework, out of which the cabinet could pass orders-in-council to suit economic and social preferences. Therefore, the 1952 legislation kept as "preferred classes" British subjects and French citizens and provided for family reunification of Asian Canadian citizens and their immediate overseas relatives. Nevertheless, quotas for immigrants from India, Pakistan, and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) were established at 150, 100, and 50 people per year, respectively. The quota for Indian

immigrants was doubled the following year.The 1952 Act did not explicitly discriminate against specific groups of immigrants. Rather, cabinet was allowed to deny people entry on the basis of their nationality, customs, or unsuitability to the Canadian climate or culture. Also, the 1952 legislation allowed Special Investigating Officers to deny entry on cultural, climactic, and social bases. In this manner, exclusions on the basis of race did not have to be explicitly stated in the legislation; they could be accomplished on a case-by-case basis. This deception allowed the federal government to escape international criticism or embarrassment, while at the same time keeping Canada "White."

http://www.canadianhistory.ca/iv/1945-1967/act/

Here's the text to the Act from that page: http://www.canadianhistory.ca/iv/1945-1967/textwindow/immigration_act_1952.html

[cybercoma]

I love the explicit banning of idiots, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics, and vagrants. Also, the clause that allows the Special Inquiry Officer to deny someone if he believes they're not a "bona fide immigrant."

History is awesome.

[cybercoma]

Anyway, historians typically agree with the quote that I posted above. The law did not explicitly ban "non-whites", but effectively that's how it was used. That's why it was revised later. In 1967, again I'm not entirely clear on the date, they created the appeals board and the immigration act was amended some time shortly after that. That's because our immigration practices were essentially racist.

[GostHacked]

It's not the diversity that ruins these nations. It's the people in control who try and pit each class or race of people against each other. They prefer us fighting and complaining about each other than what they are doing.

The people in power who use scenarios like the Travon Martin case to pit whites against blacks does more harm than good.

Understand the differences but celebrate the commonalities.

[doitwell]

It's not the diversity that ruins these nations. It's the people in control who try and pit each class or race of people against each other. They prefer us fighting and complaining about each other than what they are doing.

The people in power who use scenarios like the Travon Martin case to pit whites against blacks does more harm than good.

Understand the differences but celebrate the commonalities.

Problem is the commonalities don't outweigh the differences, unresolvable differences that are an enormous source of tension and conflict.

Canadians have been brainwashed to embrace this silly nonsense called diversity and multiculturalism. Only when Canada/USA become 3rd world due to racial conflict and huge non-white immigration, and huge non-white birth rates (along with low white birth-rates) will white canadians wake up.

About another 20 years. Birds of a feather...

Once whites are a minority, do you think non-white groups will treat whites as well as whites treat non-whites now? Nope. They will use excuses like 'past historical agression' to promote their own racial agenda.

Whites are too altruistic. Rather promote moral universalism at the expense of their own ethnic group interests, unlike other ethnic groups who are more racially aware and collectivistic.

Who are this anti-gentile, tribal, hostile elite historically associated with implementing divide and conquer strategies among different gentile nations in order to promote their own group interests; a group of people that are used to not having their own homeland until recently, feel safer living as a minority group within racially diverse societies, and have very strong ethnic networking abilities, AND practice racial segregation in their own recent nation?

We all know the answer.

Edited April 17, 2012 by doitwell

[bush_cheney2004]

...Canadians have been brainwashed to embrace this silly nonsense called diversity and multiculturalism. Only when Canada/USA become 3rd world due to racial conflict and huge non-white immigration, and huge non-white birth rates (along with low white birth-rates) will white canadians wake up.

Yea...that's what Native Americans said when the "whites" showed up.

[cybercoma]

Yea...that's what Native Americans said when the "whites" showed up.

Or what the WASPs said when the Irish showed up, or what they both said when the Chinese stuck around, or what people said when the East Indians showed up, or what people are saying now that the Muslims are showing up...