What is Canada?

[BC_chick]

So what's the claim of this foreign family?

Well, they're not foreign, for one. Battles were fought to continue an allegiance to the Britain, otherwise Canada would be a part of the US. With the exception of Quebec, which had other motives, most of the country was therefore founded on the idea of British allegiance. In doing so, many gave their lives. I really don't see the big deal of recognizing our history by honouring the queen.

Having said that, pledging allegiance to her as part of a new immigrant experience is probably be a bit over the top. There are many other ways to honour history without pledging an allegiance to it.

I like Australia's allegiance better, it has more resonance with the present country than just its history.

[Def Can]

Canada is a social assistance / job-finding program for people from other countries. It should never be a social engineering experiment that is conducted on Canada’s mainstream population in order to make it a minority. **

But immigration has become those 2 things.

Why? In particular, why has Canada’s 250,000 per year immigration intake remained in place for over 22 years?

The answer is that all of Canada’s major political parties have adopted the attitude that they know what is best for Canadians and that Canadians do not have to be consulted when major decisions are made.

These politicians imply that the primary purpose of immigration is to help people in other countries, whether this help is to protect them from persecution or from unemployment. These politicians claim that their position is morally superior, and that this is why they support current immigration policies.

They have also pretended that these policies are in the interest of Canada. But, in reality, as most Canadians can see, the policies are intended solely to help each of the political parties get a share of the immigrant vote.

This shameless immigration betrayal of Canada and the promotion of political party self-interest began in 1990 when one political party (the Progressive Conservatives) increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. At the time they did this, they actually announced they were doing so in order to capture more of the immigrant vote. This may sound hard to believe because it is so brazen, but it is a fact. Since then, all other parties have adopted the same policy. All pretend that their actions are helping people in the rest of the world and that this immigration flood is literally and figuratively enriching Canadian society.

The reality is that it has obviously been destructive and senseless. Canada’s 250,000 per year immigration intake since 1990 has been far too high. In fact, Canada’s intake is the highest per capita in the world.

What are some examples of the destruction and senselessness? Our high intake has had major negative economic consequences for Canadians who are looking for work. In fact, it has forced many of Canada’s own unemployed to compete with immigrants for a limited number of jobs and it has impoverished many Canadians .

Absurd as it may sound, some naive, employed Canadians have actually launched “Recognize Foreign Credentials”, “Cultural Diversity in the Workplace”, and “Hire An Immigrant” campaigns to give immigrants that Canada never needed a hiring advantage over unemployed Canadian-born. And they smugly believe they should be given awards for throwing their own fellow citizens under the bus.

The destruction and senselessness these naive Canadians (as well as those with sinister intentions) have created has caused many Canadians (especially those in Canada’s larger centres) to become very angry. These Canadians feel that this social engineering project has raised “Diversity” to the level of a national goal. They feel this amounts to the country being ethnically cleansed and re-colonized. Finally, they see with their own eyes that Canada’s high intake has also turned many areas of the country into crowded, grid-locked, environmental disasters-in-progress.

Repeat one basic question : Why Is Canada bringing in 250,000+ immigrants per year? Ottawa has never provided a logical answer to that question. In fact, it has pretended that current immigration is no different from past immigration. It has also withheld vital information or tried to deceive Canadians by making false claims about the benefits of immigration.

Canada should have some immigration, but that immigration levels should be reduced to about 50,000, that is, to about 20% of the current annual 250,000 intake. We advocate that the 50,000 intake level should be kept in place indefinitely to compensate for the immigration disaster that has occurred in the past 22 years.

Join the conversation at facebook.com/immigrationwatch

Edited September 6, 2013 by Def Can

[Michael Hardner]

Def Can - the logical and obvious answer is economics and growth.

Also - can you provide a link that substantiates this claim:

one political party (the Progressive Conservatives) increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. At the time they did this, they actually announced they were doing so in order to capture more of the immigrant vote. This may sound hard to believe because it is so brazen, but it is a fact.

[guyser]

Why? In particular, why has Canada’s 250,000 per year immigration intake remained in place for over 22 years?

The answer is that ....

...it isnt true.

1990 rough figures are 150,000 rising and then dropping significantly in the mid to late nineties to well below 200,000

So....guess you are barkign up the wrong tree.

[g_bambino]

Having said that, pledging allegiance to her as part of a new immigrant experience is probably be a bit over the top. There are many other ways to honour history without pledging an allegiance to it..

The oath is not at all about giving allegiance to history.

[Moonlight Graham]

The court decision has come in. Exactly what was expected:

Citizenship oath to the Queen constitutional, court rules

Ontario court dismisses application by residents who argue requirement violates their rights.

Forcing would-be Canadians to take an oath to the Queen as a condition of citizenship is constitutional, even if it does violate free-speech rights, an Ontario court ruled Friday.

In his ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan dismissed an application by three permanent residents, who argued the requirement was discriminatory and unjust.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-oath-to-the-queen-constitutional-court-rules-1.1862238

[cybercoma]

It is a violation, but a reasonable limit on their freedom. Furthermore, they are free to pursue abolition of the monarchy with constitutional protection. A pretty straightforward and expected decision.

[jacee]

Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, she's the Queen, it's the law ... but we could just skip the issue and pledge allegiance to 'Canada and its people'.

To be honest, I'm not sure how many Canadians would want to pledge allegiance to the Queen if we had to. Why should new Canadians have to to something most of us wouldn't?

[g_bambino]

Well, she's the Queen, it's the law ... but we could just skip the issue and pledge allegiance to 'Canada and its people'.

What's "Canada"? Who's included in "its people"?

To be honest, I'm not sure how many Canadians would want to pledge allegiance to the Queen if we had to. Why should new Canadians have to to something most of us wouldn't?

How many would want to isn't really relevant until its known how many understand why a pledge of allegiance to the Canadian monarch forms part of the citizenship oath: The sovereign personifies the state, as he or she is, constitutionally, the government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and people being accepted as new citizens are asked to promise to recognise and obey that authority, as well as, as the rest of the oath goes, "observe[ing] the laws of Canada and fulfil[ling their] duties" as Canadian citizens. This is in reciprocation to the monarch's coronation oath, in which the king or queen promises to "govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective laws and customs".