Immigration, Decreased Or Increased

[Alliance Fanatic]

Today Sheilla Copp's bragged about Canada's rich "multicultural" heritage. And about how great it was that 3rd, 4th, 5th, generation Canadian's are now being turned into a minority group by first generation Canadian's. She bragged about how Canadian's of European descent were now the minority in cities such as montreal, toronto, vancouver, and fairly soon Edmonton. But is this uncontrolled flow of immigrants good for the country.

In my own opinion no it is'nt. For example in Alberta, most people in Edmonton who have lived in that city for more than 30 years, are now starting to feel like aliens in their own land. Many students who I have talked to, have said that immigrants stay within their own race, and whites stay in one group. There has been a school created in Edmonton only for Students that are pakistani, which teach about the joys of multiculturalism, and Islamic history, but nothing on Canadian history.

I believe in assimilation, in the early 20th century, every single immigrant assimilated into the Canadian landscape, they left their mother country, and adopted a new country. I dont know a single thing about my former country of Denmark, Germany, or Russia, after all, why would I, Canada has a rich history, Canada was a country to be proud of, it was built on hard work, the family, and traditional values.

However the country changed when Pierre Trudeau took over, multiculturalism toke affect, immigrants started to segregate themselves in the larger cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Immigration has token its toll, in Toronto, most Canadians of European descent now feel like they are no longer in Canada, but in the far east, same goes in Vancouver, where the majority of inhabitants no longer speak english.

This countries history has also been destroyed for the good of multiculturalism. Many of my social classes in elementary were made up of the joys of multiculturalism, instead of Canada's heroic soldiers fighting at vimy, dieppe, or normandy.

Most canadians of european descent are in fact in favor of limiting immigration, and the vast majority do not want a change in the racial make up of this country. However the media quickly smears the poll as a sign that "intolerance" is going up in this country.

In some cities immigrants now seem to be first class citizens, if an immigrant has a problem with the use of christmas tree in a school, it will be renamed a multicultural tree. If any person dare oppose ethnic groups who want to turn Canada into a multicultural heaven, a human rights court punish them.

I believe that diversity is in fact destroying this country peice by peice, I propose the following immigration policies.

-immigration be reduced to 100,000 a year

-scrap diversity, and multiculturalism being taught in social classes, and replace it with Canadian heritage.

-Immigrant must learn english, or french.

-scrap racial preference programs

-scrap programs which offer benefits only to immigrants, and not to Canadian's

-Do away with human rights boards

Immigration and multiculturalism: Why are the conservatives silent?

Earlier this year, I was invited to address an influential conservative organization on the subject of immigration and its effects on our culture. In the 12 years I have been writing and speaking about these issues, it was the first time I had ever had the chance to speak to a mainstream (i.e., grassroots, Protestant) conservative group; indeed, as I found out after my talk, it was the first time in the twenty-year history of this organization (which holds major conferences covering all kind of subjects thrice yearly) that they had had any speaker on immigration. Phyllis Schlafly, one of the few mainstream conservatives who criticizes current immigration policies, and who chaired the panel I appeared on, said to me: “Immigration is not on the radar screen of the conservative movement.” Since I have obsessed for years about conservatives’ mysterious failure to grapple with this vital national issue, I decided to make that failure the topic of my talk, which follows:

Mass Immigration And Its Effects on Our Culture:

Why Are the Mainstream Conservatives Silent?

Lawrence Auster

Council for National Policy

Ritz-Carlton Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, California

February 9, 2002

The problem of immigration and the changes it is causing in our culture can be approached from many different angles. I could speak about the redefinition of America as a multicultural society instead of as a nation; or the permanent establishment of affirmative action programs for immigrants based on their race; or the town in Texas that declared Spanish its official language; or the thousands of Hispanics at an international soccer match in Los Angeles who booed and threw garbage at the American team; or the decline in educational and environmental standards in areas dominated by Hispanics; or the Hmong people from Laos who bring shamans and witch doctors into hospital rooms; or the customs of voodoo and animal sacrifice and forced marriage and female genital mutilation that have been imported into this country by recent immigrants; or the pushing aside of Christianity in our public life to give equal respect to non-Western religions; or the evisceration of American history in our schools because our white-majority American past is no longer seen as representative of our newly diverse population; or the vast numbers of Muslims established in cities throughout this country who sympathize with the Muslim terrorists and dream of turning America into an Islamic state; or our own leaders who, even after September 11th, keep telling us that the Muslims are all patriotic and tolerant, keep warning us against our supposed anti-Muslim bigotry, and continue letting thousands of people from terror supporting countries to immigrate into America.

At bottom, each of these phenomena and many more like them is happening for one reason and one reason only—the 1965 Immigration Act which opened U.S. immigration on an equal basis to every country in the world, rather than, as in the past, favoring our historic source nations of Europe. Without the 1965 Immigration Act, for example, the two or three million Middle Eastern Muslims who now reside in the United States wouldn’t be here, so there would have been no need for politicians to accommodate them by intoning that “Islam is a religion of peace” and by subjecting the whole American populace to random security checks in airports in order to avoid the “racial profiling” of Muslims. Of course many of the recent immigrants from non-European countries, including Muslims, have fitted into America and made good contributions here. It is the unprecedented scale of this diverse, non-Western immigration that is the problem.

Now I could easily devote this talk to piling up one example after another showing how the post-1965 immigration is indeed changing our culture in a host of negative ways, including, most importantly, the destruction of the very idea that there is a distinctive American culture. But today I want to ask a different and more difficult question that goes to the very heart of the immigration issue: Why have we Americans allowed this to occur? Why are we continuing to let it happen? And why, even when we gripe and complain about some aspects of it, do we feel helpless to do anything to stop it?

Not the cultural left but the mainstream

Many on the right have argued, most recently Patrick Buchanan in The Death of the West, that these things are happening because of the cultural left that hates America and wants to destroy it. There is no doubt that the cultural left hates America and wants to destroy it; and there is also no doubt that the left see mass immigration from Third-World countries as a handy way of achieving that. But that argument leaves unanswered a more disturbing question—why has there been no significant opposition to this leftist agenda? Presumably, the Republican party does not hate America and want to destroy it. Presumably, the conservative movement does not hate America and want to destroy it. Presumably conservative Protestants and parents groups that have fought against Whole Language teaching and homosexual indoctrination in the schools do not hate America and want to destroy it. Yet nowhere among these legions of mainstream conservatives and the organizations that represent them have there been any serious calls to reduce this immigration from the non-Western world and the inevitable cultural transformations it is bringing.

Nor is the fear of political correctness an adequate explanation for this conservative surrender. Whatever the power of PC in our society, it cannot account for the fact that tens of millions of mainstream conservatives ranging from Rush Limbaugh fans to conservative evangelicals either support the current immigration policy or fail to speak up against it—even in the relative privacy and safety of their own organizations.

We are thus left with a remarkable paradox: that the patriotic and Christian Right supports exactly the same immigration policy that is supported by the anti-American, atheistic left—an immigration policy, moreover, that spells the permanent eclipse of the Republican party and the victory of big government, since most of the recent immigrants vote Democratic.

Indeed, our conservative Christian President, when he’s not busy embracing so-called “moderate” Muslim leaders who are allies of terrorists, wants to expand Third-World immigration even further. But that’s not all. Unlike Republicans in the past such as Ronald Reagan, who supported Third-World immigration on the hopeful if mistaken assumption that the immigrants were all assimilating, President Bush actively promotes the growth and development of foreign languages and unassimilated foreign cultures in this country. In a speech in Miami during the 2000 campaign, he celebrated the fact that American cities are becoming culturally and linguistically like Latin American cities:

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change—some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As president, Mr. Bush has not only left in place Clinton’s executive order requiring government services to be provided in foreign languages, he has started his own presidential bilingual tradition, delivering a Spanish version of his weekly national radio address. Even the White House web site is now bilingual, with a link accompanying each of the president’s speeches that says “En Español” and points to a Spanish translation of the speech.

Yet, with the exception of Mrs. Schlafly and one or two other conservative columnists, these steps toward the establishment of Spanish as a quasi-official public language in this country have been met with complete silence on the right, even though opposition to bilingualism used to command automatic agreement among conservatives. My own efforts to publish an article about the president’s Spanish language radio addresses were refused at the most prominent conservative web sites. Now if conservatives are no longer willing to utter a peep of protest in defense of something so fundamental to America as our national language, is there anything else about our historic culture that they will continue to defend, once it is has been abandoned by a Republican president?

What all of this suggests is that mass immigration and the resulting multiculturalism are not—as many immigration restrictionists tend to believe—simply being imposed on us by the anti-American left. Rather, these destructive phenomena stem from mainstream beliefs that are shared by most Americans, particularly by conservatives. Of course economic and political forces, and the birthrate factor, are pushing this process in a variety of ways, but on the deepest level the cause is not material, it is philosophical and spiritual. The reason Americans cannot effectively oppose the transformation of our culture is that they subscribe to the belief system that has led to it.

The credo that has left us defenseless

What is that belief system? At its core, it is the quintessentially American notion that everyone is the same under the skin—that people should only be seen as individuals, with no reference to their historic culture, their ethnicity, their religion, their race. Now there is a great truth in the idea of a common human essence transcending our material differences. But if it is taken to be literally true in all circumstances and turned into an ideological dogma, it leads to the expectation that all people from every background and in whatever numbers can assimilate equally well into America.

This explains why patriotic conservatives acquiesce in a policy that is so obviously dividing and weakening our nation. Since the end of World War II, and especially since the 1960s, conservatives have tended to define America not in terms of its historic civilization and peoplehood, but almost exclusively in terms of the individual—the individual under God and the individual as an economic actor. For modern conservatives, what makes America is not any inherited cultural tradition from our past, but our belief in the timeless, universal, God-granted right of all persons in the world to be free and to improve their own lives. Therefore conservatives don’t believe there can be any moral basis to make distinctions among prospective immigrants based on their culture.

We cannot say, for example, that a shaman-following Laotian tribesman or a Pakistani who believes in forced marriage is less suited for membership in our society than an Italian Catholic or a Scots-Irish Presbyterian. And we can’t make such distinctions because, from the point of view of pure individualism, our inherited culture does not reflect any inherent or higher truth, and therefore cannot be the object of our love and protection. The only value that reflects higher truth and is deserving of our energetic defense is the freedom and sacredness of each individual. In practical terms this translates into the equal right of all individuals to make their own choices and pursue their own dreams, even if we are speaking of tens of millions of people from alien cultures whose exercise of their individual right to come to America will mean the destruction of our cultural goods.

In theory, multiculturalism is the opposite of liberal individualism. In practice it is the direct result of pursuing liberal individualism to its logical extreme. The 1965 Immigration Act was not about multiculturalism. No lawmaker said in 1965: Hey, we need Third-World cultures, we need female genital mutilation in our country, we need Shi’ite Islam and Wahhabi Islam to fulfil the meaning of America. The 1965 legislators voted to open our borders to the world, not because of a belief in the equal value of all cultures, but because of a belief in the equal rights of all individuals. The single comment most frequently heard in the Congressional debate was that prospective immigrants should be chosen solely on the basis of their “individual worth.” But this noble-sounding sentiment was largely an illusion, because, in the real world, most of the people admitted into America under the new law did not come just as individuals. They came as part of the largest mass migration in history, consisting largely of family chain migration, and inevitably brought their cultures with them.

Thus, in passing the 1965 Immigration Act, we did two fateful things. We announced that we had no culture of our own except for the principle of non-discrimination toward people of other cultures—and we began admitting millions of people from those other cultures. We started letting in all these other cultures at the very moment that we had defined our own culture out of existence.

This delusional act led to the next stage of our self-undoing. In the late 1970s and 1980s, we began waking up to the fact that those other cultures were here, that they were very different from our own, and that they were demanding to be recognized and given rights as cultures. But by that point, what basis did we have to resist those demands? We had already said that the only thing that defines us as a people is non-discrimination toward other peoples; we thus had no justification for saying that maybe it’s not such a great idea to import people adhering to radical Islam or Mexican nationalism into the United States. Having cast aside our own culture, we had no choice but to yield, step by step, to the elevation of other cultures. This is how America, through an indiscriminate and unqualified belief in individualism, ended up surrendering to its opposite—to multiculturalism.

Is immigration restriction immoral or un-Christian?

I know that what I’ve said up to this point will offend many conservatives, particularly Christians. For one thing, the Christian church consists of people of every culture and race, so why can’t a nation? The answer is that the church is a heavenly organization, it is not responsible, as a nation is, for the defense and preservation of a particular earthly society. Mexico and Nigeria, for example, are largely Christian, but in cultural terms are radically different from the United States.

To believe that all peoples on earth should join our country is the very idea that God rejected at the tower of Babel. God said he did not want all men to be united in one society, because that would glorify human power. If I may presume to say so, God had a more modest idea of human life on earth. He wanted men to live in distinct societies, each speaking its own tongue, developing its own culture, and expressing God in its own way. This is the true diversity of cultures that constitutes mankind, not the false diversity that results from eliminating borders and coercively mixing everyone together, which destroys each country’s distinctive character. Consider how today’s multicultural London has lost much of its Englishness, and increasingly resembles multicultural New York.

So I would respectfully suggest that when Christians translate the spiritual idea of the unity of people under God into the political ideology that people from all cultures should be allowed to come en masse to America and other Western countries, that is not the traditional teaching of the Christian church, that is a modern liberal idea, that is the Religion of Man, which has been infused into the Christian church over the past 50 years.

But if this is the case, how can we reconcile our potential spiritual unity as human beings under God with our actual cultural differences? The answer is that in individual and private relationships, people of different backgrounds can relate to each other as individuals, without discrimination of culture and ethnicity. But on the group level, on the level of entire peoples and nations and mass migrations, cultural differences do matter very much and cannot be safely ignored.

Thinking and Acting Anew

It would therefore be a tragic error to limit our thinking about immigration to technical matters such as law enforcement against illegal aliens and security measures against terrorists, as vitally important as those things are. Beyond the immediate threat of mass physical destruction, we face a more subtle but no less serious threat to the very survival of our civilization. As Daniel Pipes writes in a recent issue of Commentary: “To me, the current wave of militant Islamic violence against the United States, however dangerous, is ultimately less consequential than the non-violent effort to transform it through immigration, natural reproduction, and conversion.” Of course I agree with Mr. Pipes. But, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, we cannot hope to stop or significantly slow that immigration unless we abandon this contemporary idea that America is defined by nothing except individual freedom and opportunity—the idea that America has no particular culture of its own that is worth preserving. Rethinking these beliefs and rewriting our immigration laws accordingly will not be easy, but if we fail to make the attempt, we will simply continue sliding, slowly but surely, toward the dissolution of our culture and our country

[Black Dog]

What exactly is your point? Why is immigration in and of itself such a bad thing? Near as I can tell, your argument can be boiled down to "there's too many of them damn immigants and they don't even speak English". So what?

For example in Alberta, most people in Edmonton who have lived in that city for more than 30 years, are now starting to feel like aliens in their own land.

Boo hoo. It's not "our" land. Canmada is built on immigrants. If someone wants to come here and work hard to build a life for themselves and their familes, power to them.

I believe in assimilation, in the early 20th century, every single immigrant assimilated into the Canadian landscape, they left their mother country, and adopted a new country.

Bollocks. Most groups hung on to the values and traditions of their culture, as demonstrated by the strong Ukranian, German, Swedish prescence here in Alberta.

Immigration has token its toll, in Toronto, most Canadians of European descent now feel like they are no longer in Canada, but in the far east, same goes in Vancouver, where the majority of inhabitants no longer speak english.

"Taken its toll" how? Because these people have the audacity to speak thei rnative language. Oh the humanity....

Most canadians of european descent are in fact in favor of limiting immigration, and the vast majority do not want a change in the racial make up of this country. However the media quickly smears the poll as a sign that "intolerance" is going up in this country.

Care to show this poll?

In some cities immigrants now seem to be first class citizens,

Aw...so being a member of the most privileged segment of Western society isn't enough for you?

[Alliance Fanatic]

Black Dog, to be honest you hate Canadian culture. You say that western civilization, the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for in two world wars was evil and wicked. You view our history and heritage as evil and despicable you want it to be destroyed. Secondly nobody in my town remembers their former root, such as which country they came from before they came to Canada. We let go of our mother country to embrace the country of Canada, which was one of the best in the world. If Canada was just a country with no common values, common people, or common history, why would Canadian's die for it.

[SirRiff]

hey alliance fanatic, i had no idea you were native american. the only "true" canadians were the ones that have been here since the beginning of mankind.

those whites that feel out of place now are the decendants of whites who made indians feel out of place a long time ago. the solution to that problem would have been to prevent whites to continue to settle in canada 200 years ago.

so there is no great authority that any white canadian has over any other canadian.

in truth there really is no problem other then ones peope invent. blacks and whites and asians invent this huge divisions and futher divide themselves. nobody can make you feel less canadian.

sirriff

[Lost in Manitoba]

AF does seem to be overly emotional about the issue. A large part of his arguments refer back to Canadian lives lost in war, probably due to his own family history. Traditional values should be kept because someone we loved died for them, or something of that ilk, I believe.

Well, in part, I have to agree with him. Immigrants should learn to speak one of our official languages. They should teach extensive Canadian studies (literature, geography, history, and politcs) in schools. Canada should be thought of as the #1 country in the world for any immigrant. As for multi-culturalism, however, keeping traditions such as language, clothing, religion, food, and other customs of the like, does not seem unreasonable to me. Diversity and multi-culturism can make a society better, as long as we have the common love for the country itself. This is more of a failure of the government, than a problem with the immigrants themselves.

(Or, put it this way.) If I moved to Mexico tomorrow, chances are I'd learn spanish and local customs and mores (to function better in the society), but chances are I'd continue to dress like I always do, eat non-spicy Canadian cuisine, and talk to my wife and children in english. Would I be wrong for doing that?

[Alliance Fanatic]

Lost in Manitoba, I never said that people can't bring their food over here. I believe that they should adopt Canada as their own, and sever ties to their home country. If I were to move to Japan, I would sever ties with Canada and become part of the Japanese nation. However it is a different case in Canada because when you have over 250,000 immigrants a year going to only three major cities, than immigrants can easily start ghetto's. It's happening in Edmonton right now, most Asian's are only living around Chinatown, and Asians in Vancouver have started their own small city apart from the rest of Canada. As for Siriff's position that Canada took this land from the natives' the fact is that many native tribes took part in torture, and the west civilized natives.

-I'm not saying that wrongs were done, but it seems that the whole country is being torn down in favor of a mosaic, but look at what happened in Great Britain, large scale immigration, with multicultularism, beckoned balkanization and race riots. Canada is not far off, if Canadian's of European descent feel that they have nothing in common with immigrants, then race riots, and racism will prevail.

[Lost in Manitoba]

For sure there is a better way to do things. Its a failure of the government, not just the liberal one, that a better policy hasn't been implemented.

Skills and education should be the main determining factor of immigration, then the potential for fitting in, ie. will younger adults be more likely to adapt, or maybe young couples whose children will be taught ala canadian schooling.

Severing ties with your original country probably isn't that benificial though. I'd assume in business and politics, we have more success with countries we have ties to.

I'd like to see an immigration preference especially for the EU and the US, as these seem to be our most closely held ties.

[Michael Hardner]

As far as I see, AllianceFanatic has barely touched on (if he did touch on it) one of the main drivers behind immigration: the economy.

An economy with a declining population is hard-pressed to grow. And Canada has a low birth rate. You seem to be from Alberta. I'm from Toronto, and I can tell you that many of the cab drivers, small store owners and manual labourers in this city are new immigrants. These are people who work and earn money, and spend it here.

Mainstream conservatives, whatever that means, support a strong business climate because a good economy is good for all Canadians. Perhaps that's why they haven't voiced opposition to immigration policies, outside of criticisizing the federal government on immigration.

Also, SirRiff said:

those whites that feel out of place now are the decendants of whites who made indians feel out of place a long time ago. the solution to that problem would have been to prevent whites to continue to settle in canada 200 years ago.

This isn't entirely accurate.

The whites that feel out of place now include Italians, Irish, French and English.

The Italians were made to feel out of place by Irish and French. The Irish and French were made to feel out of place by the English.

So "white" doesn't have as simple a definition as it seems to have.

[westcoast99]

You know AF, rarely do I ever agree with Black_Dog an issue, but in this case, I do.

Immigration is what this nation is built on. Everyone in Canada is an immigrant, with the exception of Native Canadians.

We have a brain drain of many of our youth now, but a brain gain coming with our immigrants.

The vast majority of our immigrants are well educated university graduates, and it is shameful that many businesses do not recognize their education and these individuals are often stuck working minimum wage paying jobs such as janitorial work, or driving taxis.

The most disgusting thing about this, is that while we have hard working immigrants doing janitorial work.

In some cities immigrants now seem to be first class citizens

As they most certainly should be. The great thing about this country, AF, is that immigrants can build a prosperous life for themselves and their families, while keeping their beliefs and heritage.

We have a good immigration system. Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Slavik44]

Alliance Fanatic, who is it up to to determine if people have become Canadian? Or even need to be canadianized. I think what copps said was stupid to....but then agian it's not like she came close to challanging Paul Martin.

"Today Sheilla Copp's bragged about Canada's rich "multicultural" heritage. And about how great it was that 3rd, 4th, 5th, generation Canadian's are now being turned into a minority group by first generation Canadian's"

See this is not a statement anyone should be making about how it is great thing that White Canadians are a minority. I have nothing wrong with Immagrints or immagraiton...but i do have a problem when someone gets up like this and uses Borderline Racism to proove a point.

So now i got a problem with what you said as well, becuase i would like to know what a Canadian is? Who is to say it isn't that guy in a yellow taxi at the airport? or the person who cuts your hair that you can't understand, but for some reason they understand you? Maybe it is the guy who owns the cornerstore down the street? Or maye it is the rich guy in the porsche who just passed you? Perhaps it is Paul Martin? Stephen Harper? Maybe it is you? Maybe it is me? But perhaps being a Canadian is not as exclusive as you say? I mean I used to Deliver a newspaper, and there would be people from china with a Canadian Flag outside there house, is there one outside yours? If you play any sports...in any sort of leagues with you friends...do you immediatley suggest calling yourselves team Canada? Becuase i know people...from India, pakistan, china, and taiwan....that do. I know that if you ask these immagrints if they like Canada more then "enter country here", they almost always say Yes. Despite the fact the really don't know our language and can't get fully involved all the time.

I mean my family is about 6-7 generations Canadian

what makes me more Canadian then an immagrant from china? I have lived here longer? I am Smarter then them?

I am nicer? or was it my ancestors who decided to come over to Canada...becuase of the freedoms it offered? Just like these immagrants we ahve are reasons for commign to Canada...and we have are path to take to get to Canada...but in the end every single one of us is Canada.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Immigration is causing problems in the city of Edmonton, multiculturalism is beckoning balkanization. We are taught that race makes us different from each other.

Secondly Gugsy said that I was borderline Hitler, how is that, because I believe that the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for is now being turned upside down. Look at the Canada that my family built, we valued the family, we valued life, and we embraced Canada as our own country. Now look at what happened to it, our military has been made into a laughing stock by 30 years of liberalism, and multiculturalism.

Today immigrants rarely have to work for anything, in the RCMP, if an immigrant applies and gets 63% of his test, and a white male applies and gets 85%, the immigrant is chosen over the white person, I think that that is racism.

In some places where Canadian's sing christmas carrols, they'll be threatened by people to stop, or else they will be sued by a human rights commission. One immigrant that I talked to from India, said that it is complete BS, so did Jay Grewal, a Sihk MP. Look I have nothing against people coming to this country and living here. But when they come and go to only three major centers in the country, and start ghetto's then I have a problem. I also have a problem when people like Sunera Thobani, call all 4th and 5th generation Canadian's intollerant bigots.

Lets look at what happened to Canada over the past 30 years, what has occured is the world turned upside down. Once we valued the traditional family, now we values homosexuality, and in schools their are posters of men having anal sex, trying to get more gays to use safe sex. Christianity, is hated in Canada, a christian teacher was fired in BC for standing up agianst some of those pay positive programs, which make homosexuality look like its just a great lifestyle. Homosexuality is'nt a lifestyle, its a deathstyle, the bible, koran, torah, and the Atlanta Center for Disease Control, will tell you this.

Canada is dead, a civilization, society, and country, based on the tradition family, traditional values, and christian love, has been replaced by a Canada based on welfare, abortion, homosexuality, and a country which no longer values anything other than the quality of life.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Gugsy said that I sounded like Hitler, well the truth is that Canadians who have been here before 1960, feel as though they are no longer welcome. The same thing is happening in California. This is what one mexican leader said to the newsmedia after Clinton gave her an award.

- White protestants need to get used to the fact that mexicans are the new majority, they [Americans] no longer have the power, we do, if they dont like us using our own language, then they oughta move somewhere else, the fact is we mexicans living in California will never consider ourselves American and always be mexicans.

Strangely enough American's have been moving to Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah, from California.

As for Gugsy saying that I am saying their is a master race, I never said that at all, what I meant was that Canadian's of European descent are infact second class citizens. Look at politics, Liberals always do whatever the ethnocultural council wants. For example if immigrants want racial preferences, they get it, if immigrants want christmas to be banned, they get it.

I think that if we are to de-christianize Canada, then everybody ought to be a part of the debate. Jean Chretien and Sheila Copps, both said that the constitution, and charter of rights was not made for Canadian's of European descent, and only minorities.

Here is what I believe in

- I think that if we are to make decisions they should be for the group as a whole, not only made to benefit a few ethnic groups.

- Assimilation has been proven to work better than using a Mosaic, it worked in the early twentieth century, and it will work today.

- Canada has a rich history, and has a distinct culture.

- What does it mean to be a Canadian, if you are willing to die for a country then you are a Canadian.

- Gugsy obviously supports the ghettoization of major Canadian cities, but I dont.

- Lets look at what Canadian's accomplished before 1970's.

- One of the best fighting militaries in the world, we gave 600,000 of our best men to fight in world war 1, and 100,000 Canadians died fighting the evils of facism, and communism.

- Build a successful economy out of a harsh landscape, and become an independant country which was able to function on its own.

- A proud military history with victories dating back to the 18th century.

Now look at what's happened to Canada,

-70% of Canadians feel that Pierre Trudeau, who said that Canada was just as bad as the "nazis", and sympathised with tyrants who killed millions of innocent lives, was the man who made us what we are today. A country of freeloaders of the US defense budget, so we can spend money on our welfare, and socialist programs.

- Canadian's have been brainwashed, especially down in the east, they believe Canada began in 1970, when Trudeau got in, and destroyed countless numbers of lives west, because people never voted for him.

-Canadian's seem very arrogant of their own history, many cannot name a single PM before Trudeau.

- I think that Canada will one day become just one large nation, with no soul, no history. Its people have nothing in common, language, history, customs, traditions, values.

What will happen to Canada.

And I never said that we should ban people from third world countries from coming here. However we should lower immigration to 100,000 a year. Or else their will be an even larger influx in crime, and poverty.

-I also believe that immigrants should be sent back if they commit crime, it does not make any sense to keep people here who come here to exploit it rather than embrace. [sorry gugsy, i know that you might find this nazi like, but its the truth]

[westcoast99]

AF,

I won't waste my time replying to everything you've said.

Immigration does not cause crime and poverty.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Alliance Fanatic]

Here are a few interesting articles.

And may I ask people to tell me how multiculturalism helps a country

And what is so evil about the countries culture and values also. [meaning Canada's]

By the way Gugsy, dont take a guess that it is automatically racist, or else you make posts that sound like they come from the CBC.

patriotism is not racism. "The wish to preserve one's identity and the identity of one's nation

Multiculturalism's volatile mix

by George Jonas

National Post

June 25, 2002

The loyalty of immigrants has been remarkable in Western societies. Canada and the United States have both benefited from it. Lately, however, we've been witnessing a new phenomenon: The immigrant of dubious loyalty. We've also begun to see disloyal native-borns, whether of immigrant ancestry or Islamic conversion. It hasn't happened overnight. To see it in context, it's useful to look at the point of departure.

During the First World War, with statistically insignificant exceptions, immigrants from enemy countries as well as their children remained loyal to Canada and the United States throughout the hostilities.

During the Second World War, although we treated German, Italian, or Japanese immigrants and their descendants shabbily, as a rule they responded with unfailing patriotism. For every Tokyo Rose (the American GI's nickname for Ikuko Toguri, a Japanese-American woman, born in Los Angeles, who broadcast Japanese propaganda during the war) there were thousands of Japanese-American soldiers who gave their lives to fight Fascism.

Some Jews and anti-Fascists who escaped Germany or occupied Europe ended up in Canada or America. Much as these refugees were on our side in the war against Hitler, technically they were enemy aliens. On arrival, they were often placed in internment camps. Many Canadians and Americans of Japanese, Italian, etc., extraction were interned as well, especially on the West Coast. Decades later Canada apologized, first to the Japanese and eventually to the Italian community. But -- and this is the point -- even our small-minded conduct failed to alter the fundamental loyalties of these immigrant groups.

The pattern continued during the Cold War, when former nationals of hostile Communist countries often found refuge in North America. These newcomers of various ethnicity and religion, from Eastern Europe to Vietnam, were at least as supportive of the values and interests of their adopted countries as native-born citizens of western descent. Few Americans opposed the anti-American antics of Fidel Castro as resolutely, for instance, as Florida's ex-Cuban community.

Over the past 30 years, however, a new type of immigrant emerged. He seemed ready to share the West's wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or a refugee. In addition to immigrant societies like Canada or the United States, the new type affected homogenous countries such as Britain, France, or Holland as well.

Most newcomers continued to be loyal, needless to say. Conflicting loyalties influenced only a fraction. Except this fraction was no longer statistically insignificant.

Instead of making efforts to assimilate -- or accept the cultural consequences of not joining the mainstream, like such previous groups as the Mennonites -- the new type of immigrant demanded changes in the host country's culture. He called on society to accommodate his linguistic or religious requirements.

Sometimes the matter was minor. In 1985, for instance, a Sikh CNR railway worker named Bhinder refused to exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. Sometimes it wasn't such a minor matter: In 1991, a newly appointed Toronto police board commissioner of Asian extraction, Susan Eng, declined to take the traditional oath to the Queen.

Minor or not, the host societies' usual response was accommodation. Turbans were substituted for hard hats; the language of the police oath was changed. But accommodation only escalated demands. Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s, a Muslim group in Britain called al-Muhajroun (?migr?s), led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah.

Disturbing as such talk was, it wasn't unlawful. Dissent was within our democratic tradition, although the tradition presumed that the dissenters would be democrats themselves. Alas, the new dissenters were anything but. Some were terrorists, or their cheerleaders. Eventually their "dissent" culminated in the massacre of 9/11. Most of the Muslim militants who crashed airliners into Washington and New York were legal residents in America.

How did this come about? Three reasons seem to stand out. The first two have to do with our culture, the third with the culture of militant Islam.

When we retreated from the principle that immigration should serve the interests of the host country first, our misguided liberalism opened a Pandora's box. Embracing the idea of non-traditional immigration, we seemed to forget that when groups of distant cultural and political traditions arrive in significant numbers, they may establish their own communities not merely as colourful expressions of ethnic diversity -- festivals or restaurants -- but as separate cultural-political entities.

Next, we tried to turn this liability into an asset by promoting multiculturalism. We stopped ascribing any value to integration, and began flirting with the notion that host countries aren't legitimate entities with their own cultures, only political frameworks for various co-existing cultures. To paraphrase William Blake, instead of trying to build Jerusalem in "England's green and pleasant land," we switched to building Beirut.

Finally, in fundamentalist Islam, we've come up against a culture for which the very concept of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's is alien. Puritanical Islam considers that everything belongs to God (or rather, some mullah's idea of God). This concept doesn't allow for a secular or territorial entity, such as a country, to command a higher loyalty than one's faith. If one's religious leader demands the suppression of what he regards as a blasphemous book, the fact that Western constitutions protect free expression is just so much piffle for a true believer. His ultimate goal is a faith-based state, an Islamic theocracy.

Commenting on non-traditional immigration requires a footnote. The problem doesn't arise when people come to Canada from the Levant; the problem arises when people come to recreate the Levant in Canada. That's where non-traditional immigration and multiculturalism become a volatile mix. Extending our values to others is one thing, but modifying our values to suit the values of others is a vastly different proposition. As the late scholar Ernest van den Haag pointed out in 1965, patriotism is not racism. "The wish to preserve one's identity and the identity of one's nation," he wrote in a prescient piece in The National Review, "requires no justification any more than the wish to have one's own children."

By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in our country -- or rather in what we're no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space. When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a tabula rasa, a clean slate, for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren't very pleasant. The sound you hear is the sharpening of their chisels.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Gugsy I never said that one race was the master race. However the fact of the matter is that you support Canada becoming a ghettoized nation. Some immigrants come to Canada and start up gangs, which only cause problems. You seem to believe that Canada is nothing, not worth fighting for, a land with no culture, heritage, or history.

How would you feel if a person comes to your home that you invited, and then demands that you change everything in order to accomodate that person, and if you believed in Christmas, you must stop celebrating it ourelse you will get sued.

Secondly ethnic groups always get a seat at the table, Sheila Copp's is demanding that we bring about more racial prefernce programs.

Why do you believe that we should punish the grandchildren of those who fought in world wars 1 and 2. So that we can have racial equity. My family had to work hard to get into this country, and actually build a living. We adopted the country.

You are obvioulsy not listening to me. Mass Immigration cause

-Balkanization and Ghettoization.

-People put their loyalties to their home country, not Canada.

- In Vancouver the majority of people nolonger speak english, but mandarin. Canadian's who have lived for most of their lifetime feel like aliens in their own country.

What wrong with 4th,5th,6th,and 7th generation Canadian's becoming a minority, well simple, most immigrants will vote in huge blocs. For Example

75%-Liberals

8%-Canadian Alliance

10% NDP

Gugsy you are no better than the ranting leftists at Rabble, or the pinko commies at CBC. If you say something politically incorrect than you are a nazi, bigot, racist, hitler lover, homophobe, and a Klansmen.

Over the past 30 years, however, a new type of immigrant emerged. He seemed ready to share the West's wealth but not its values. In many ways he resembled an invader more than a settler or a refugee. In addition to immigrant societies like Canada or the United States, the new type affected homogenous countries such as Britain, France, or Holland as well.

Sometimes the matter was minor. In 1985, for instance, a Sikh CNR railway worker named Bhinder refused to exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. Sometimes it wasn't such a minor matter: In 1991, a newly appointed Toronto police board commissioner of Asian extraction, Susan Eng, declined to take the traditional oath to the Queen.

Minor or not, the host societies' usual response was accommodation. Turbans were substituted for hard hats; the language of the police oath was changed. But accommodation only escalated demands. Requests for cultural exemption were soon followed by openly voiced sentiments of disloyalty. By the late 1990s, a Muslim group in Britain called al-Muhajroun (?migr?s), led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, saw fit to express the view that no British Muslim has any obligation to British law when it conflicts with the law of Allah.

By now multiculturalism has made it difficult to safeguard our traditions and ideals against a new type of immigrant whose goal is not to fit in, but to carve out a niche for his own tribe, language, customs, or religion in our country -- or rather in what we're no longer supposed to view as a country but something between Grand Central Station and an empty space. When Canada is no longer regarded as a culture, with its own traditions and narratives, but a tabula rasa, a clean slate, for anyone to write on what he will, immigrants of the new school will be ready with their own texts, including some that aren't very pleasant. The sound you hear is the sharpening of their chisels.

[Moderate Centrist]

Once again we see more “fanatic” than “alliance” shining through.

First, you did not provide a source for the Mexican quote you provided. Can you back this up?

“…what I meant was that Canadian's of European descent are infact second class citizens.”

Alliance Fanatic

How so? I’m white and have never been treated like a second class citizen and am not aware of any that have unless they deserve it.

“Liberals always do whatever the ethnocultural council wants. For example if immigrants want racial preferences, they get it, if immigrants want christmas to be banned, they get it.”

Alliance Fanatic

If you’re talking about the Liberal party – have a look at them. How many immigrants, people of color or women do you see in positions of power? Almost none.

Racial preferences – I challenge you to name the ones you are referring to.

The Christmas tree incident I assume was Toronto last year. This was not officially called for by any immigrant group but rather was decided on by ( I may be wrong on this) city council who have taken political correctness too far.

” I think that if we are to de-christianize Canada, then everybody ought to be a part of the debate”

Alliance Fanatic

Religion in either stabilized or in decline in every western and modernizing country in the world. Any religion that needs state sponsorship isn’t worth practicing anyway.

”Jean Chretien and Sheila Copps, both said that the constitution, and charter of rights was not made for Canadian's of European descent, and only minorities.”

Alliance Fanatic

Again, give us a date and source for this quote.

“Canada has a rich history, and has a distinct culture.”

Alliance Fanatic

And where exactly is the debate on this?

“What does it mean to be a Canadian, if you are willing to die for a country then you are a Canadian.”

Alliance FANATIC

I think this is asking a bit much. I may be willing to fight for Canada if we were attacked but I don’t believe this should be equated with weather or not you are Canadian. There were plenty of conscientious objectors during both wars and a sizable part of the population that didn’t want any part. We also had a Prime Minister who wanted to keep us out all together.

You seem to put a premium on military participation by citizens.

"“One of the best fighting militaries in the world, we gave 600,000 of our best men to fight in world war 1, and 100,000 Canadians died fighting the evils of facism, and communism.”

Firstly WW1 started as follows for Canada – Britain is at war therefore Canada is at war. We should hold in highest regard the men who fought and died but the War itself had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with an arms race between Britain and Germany. Most of the soldiers who signed up had no idea what they were in for and the war itself accomplished absolutely nothing except to lay the groundwork for WW2.

Second - 42,000 died fighting Facism

Third - 500 Canadians died fighting Communism (Korean War)

”Build a successful economy out of a harsh landscape, and become an independant country which was able to function on its own.”

Alliance Fanatic

Do we not have this today?

”… Pierre Trudeau, who said that Canada was just as bad as the "nazis",…”

Alliance Fanatic

Where and when did Trudeau say this?

“Canadian's seem very arrogant of their own history, many cannot name a single PM before Trudeau.”

Alliance Fanatic

I agree here that general knowledge of history is very poor. However:

Person, Deifenbaker, St. Laurent, Mackenzie King, Borden

"However we should lower immigration to 100,000 a year.”

Alliance Fanatic

Please state why you choose this number and please provide statistics for the current level of immigration.

“Or else their will be an even larger influx in crime, and poverty.”

Alliance Fanatic

I’ve challenged you on this before as have others but I’ll try again – please provide statistics and a source proving that crime increases with immigration. I don’t deny it or confirm it but I want to see numbers.

[Boydfish]

I think that there is always a great deal of rhetoric and posturing by both sides in the never ending immigration debate.

I don't think that I'd be able to offer very much in useful discussion as to the immigration issue in Canada, but for British Columbia, which has far different immigration issues than Canada, I might offer these points:

#1-British Columbia is a far more multicultural and, please forgive the condescending term, mature nation than Canada in the area of multiculturalism. While British Columbia is still clearly a British origin nation, the British elements that are part of our nation's foundation are more diverse than our Canadian cousins. Some of the most vocal pro-monarchy elements of British Columbian society are from the Chinese and Indian communities(The largest wave of immigration from India to British Columbia came when India dropped the monarchy.).

Before the Canadians get bent out of shape by having a mere British Columbian calling them less mature as a nation, the reason that we are is because we were forced to. The "English" and "French" parts of Canada are essentialy identical and compatible cultures of no real difference, as well as the other European minority groups. To those outside of Ontario and Quebec, the differences are insignifigant when compared to the profound differences between the British, Indian, Chinese and Japanese cultures that are quite dominant in British Columbia. We grew up faster because we did shitty things to each other and learned from it. We interred Japanese-British Columbians. We turned back boatloads of Indians. We used the Chinese to blast a hole in the Rocky Mountains. We even had a bunch of Indians commit the worst act of aviation terrorism up to that point in history. No major group has been completely guilt free in the process.

We didn't get better because we are a "better" nation, we got past it because we had to. There isn't a British Columbian worthy of the name who wouldn't trade their right arm to have prevented any of those tragedies.

My point here on immigration is that British Columbia's immigration needs are far different than Canada's. We can absorb far more immigrants than the Canadians due to our vastly different national identity. We can handle another million from the Pacific Rim every year without difficulty(Assuming that we didn't skew it insanely towards one group or another; think roughly 3/8ths Indian, 3/8ths Chinese, 1/8th European and 1/8th other British Commonwealth origin.). Canada cannot, as they can only really absorb signifigant numbers of Western Europeans.

#2-Vancouver as a "non-English speaking" city. Yes and no. Is English the dominant language in Vancouver? No. French isn't even a statistical blip, for what it's worth to those that think that writing something in Ottawa makes it happen across the confederation.

What English is, like it is around the world, is the language of business. If you wish to live, work and exist in the Lower Mainland in Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, Japanese or even English, you can do so easily. If you wish to conduct cross-cultural or trans-national business, or business in a general market format, it is done in English.

It's not just the above areas that are "cultural enclaves"; the Kootenays have a massive Russian community(They're on the Pacific Rim too, remember?). Chilliwack is so German, it's scary.

#3-Immigration is a good thing for British Columbia. We have an acceptable climate, lots of room and a tolerant national culture. We need it.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, to be honest you hate Canadian culture. You say that western civilization, the Canada that 100,000 Canadian's died for in two world wars was evil and wicked. You view our history and heritage as evil and despicable you want it to be destroyed. Secondly nobody in my town remembers their former root, such as which country they came from before they came to Canada. We let go of our mother country to embrace the country of Canada, which was one of the best in the world. If Canada was just a country with no common values, common people, or common history, why would Canadian's die for it.

First of all: huh?

The fact that i recognize that the history of our nation and, indeed, western civilization is not all sweetenss and light doesn't mean I despise our culture and values. In fact, I believe that by recognizing the sins of our past we can avoid them in the future and allow our country to fulfill its potential.

Secondly, your whole diatribe reeks of outdated and anachronistic nationalism, the same kind of thinking that led to the wars so many Canadians laid down their lives for. While an argument could be made that much of that sacrifice was worthwhile to stop the spread of tyranny, how many more Canadians were sacrificed on the altar of pride and hollow words.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Actually Boyfish is right on some points. Many immigrants have infact assimilated. Many have supported conservative causes, and supported the Canadian Alliance. However at the same time, mass immigration can be unhealthy, if balkanization were to occur.

[Communist_boy]

I noticed some discussion of teaching a canadian heritage, what is canadian heritage without imigration. It seems to me that this countries was started by immigration.