Rudyard Griffiths: Canada Pays The Price Of Immigration On The Cheap

Rudyard Griffiths: Canada pays the price of immigration on the cheap
Posted: January 27, 2009, 8:00 AM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Rudyard Griffiths

One of the enjoyable things about writing for the National Post is the feedback you get from readers. My last column (Change the things you can, Jan. 14) suggesting a temporary reduction in immigration levels to retain, during these recessionary times, skilled workers who have emigrated to Canada was no exception.

Some readers challenged me to explain how Canada could not but welcome 250,000 or more newcomers each year given its fast ageing workforce and flaccid birth rate. Others posited that the countrys commitment to sustained high immigration is a source of national pride and a policy that sets Canada apart from its peer nations.

As valid as these arguments are, they skirt the thornier issues associated with the impact of high levels of immigration on the country and on newcomers.

I would suggest that the root problem with our immigration system is not the number of immigrants we accept. Rather it is Canadians increasingly blas attitude toward the ideals of our shared citizenship and the mythologizing of Canadas immigration and settlement systems.

To state the obvious: Every immigrant is a citizen, too. Canadian society has a basic responsibility to ensure newcomers have a similar chance at succeeding in life as natural-born citizens. In practical terms, this most often means the complex and expensive tasks of helping immigrants master a new language and having their work skills and knowledge accredited (or brought up to Canadian standards as quickly as possible).

Yet consider that up until the middle of this decade British Columbia and Ontario, which year after year welcomed two-thirds or more of all immigrants to Canada, received as little as $900 per person from the federal government annually to help settle newcomers. By way of comparison, somewhere in the order of $7,000 per person is spent each year on programs and services for the over one million people who claim aboriginal descent, many of whom need and benefit from the very same kinds of educational and skills development that immigrants are clamouring for.

The reality is that by increasing overall immigration rates while running, for going on a generation, the countrys settlement programs on the cheap, Canadian society has incurred huge human and economic costs. Case in point: Over the last quarter-century, low-income rates among recent immigrants rose from an already worrying 24% in 1980 to a downright depressing 34% today. During that same time period, low income rates among the Canadian-born fell from 17% to 11%.

The astonishing fact that 40% of professional male immigrants leave Canada permanently within 10 years fails to register as the massive policy failure it is because it contradicts our unquestioning faith in the countrys ability to integrate record numbers of newcomers year after year.

Thus, Canada faces a simple choice when it comes to setting its immigration levels: If we continue to accept 250,000 or more newcomers annually for economic reasons, or to maintain our boasting rights as the worlds immigration per-capita leader, then governments and taxpayers will need to spend significantly more on the countrys settlement systems for the foreseeable future. But should the collective will not materialize to rebuild these systems, the only ethical course of action is to bring immigration levels in line with the funding Canadians are willing to spend to help newcomers integrate successfully.

Canadians cannot afford blind spots on this issue. We risk ignoring at our own peril the harm a business-as-usual immigration policy can do during recessionary times to our economy, to our international reputation and to the lives of countless newcomers who have chosen to call Canada home.
National Post

Rudyard Griffiths is the co-founder of the Dominion Institute. His forthcoming book Who We Are: A Citizens Manifesto will be published this March by Douglas & Macintyre.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

67 Comments

by Yussi
Jan 27 2009
8:30 AM

I can agree with this post. It would be absurd to decrease immigration – this country is nowhere near as multicultural as it should be. However, the government provide more resources for this matter. One idea: tax-deductions for companies that employ new Canadians.

by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
9:22 AM

Not as multicultural as it should be? Now there's a loaded statement. “Should be?!?!?!” You mean there's a level of multiculturalism that nations are supposed to have, are morally required to have? So you mean every nation that is not as multicultural as Canada is in the wrong and “should” be changed? I got an idea, Yussi, being the fervent multiculturalist that you are – you and a bunch of buddies from the old country go back there and try to tell your countrymen that their nation is too uniform, too whatever it is – you have decided that it “should” be populated by roughly equal proportions of themselves, and Africans, and Asians, and Texans, and Latins, and you have come back to ensure this transformation is imposed on them by rule of law. See how that goes.

by JARA!
Jan 27 2009
9:26 AM

I agree with Mr Griffiths' points and would add a few more: first, Canadians need to realize that politicians will not reduce immigrations levels because new immigrants are usually new voters who, since the change to the Citizenship laws to permit Canadian citizenship status after 3 years, are eligible to vote and the evidence shows that they vote in large numbers for the party in power when they arrive. Increases in immigration levels should therefore be made much more rigourously than is presently the case.

Second, more money for integration is not n ecessairly the answer. The federal government quadrupled funding for settlement programmes in 2006 but without any evidence of just how much it costs to “successfully integrate” new immigrants. We must also not forget to mention that Quebec receives over $200 million a year under the Canada-Quebec Accord for some 17% of immigrants coming to Canada and offers very generous settlement programmes but cannot boast a high degree of success with integrating immigrants. T

Third, since the lion's share of integration funding is spent on language training, why do we not, as other settlement countries have done, require mandatory language testing for immigrants to reduce the over one third of immigrants that arrive in this country with no knowledge of either official language. This would go a long way to reducing the burden taxpayers face to integrate immigrants.

Fourth, Canadian immigration policy (and refugee policy which is another area on the brink of crisis) has become entirely politicized, i.e., subject to the pressure of vocal interest groups with enormous influence and ability to garner media attention with the result that politicians are hesitant to do what is in the public interest on immigration policy. This was reinforced recently with the changes to the Immigration Act proposed in the last Budget to avoid a protracted debate and equip the government with the desperately needed tools to deal with the so-called “backlog” of applications to come to Canada.

Finally, if we are to keep immigration levels high then we need to focus on bringing in immigrants with less need for integration programmes. This means raising the currently low pass mark and changing the application system so that the immigrants who come have skills for the jobs available – we need job fillers rather than job seekers which is what the system provides now.

by robertbj
Jan 27 2009
9:27 AM

The people that really built this country mostly came over with about 10 cents in their pocket and didn't require hand-holding and assistance except as provided by their cultural compatriots who were already here. If someone had no support here, it was a lesson in rapid integration and language-learning.

Failure to integrate is not a failure in government policy, it IS government policy.

Canada since the 1960s has used the mask of multiculturalism to become an apartheid country which uses inducements and subsidies to split people into cultural groups, which then compete for government handouts, and in the case of aboriginals, they are segregated according to race, to determine that they pay different prices, or less taxes. It's the old divide and rule – another carreer-making industry for the bureaucrats, to classify people by race and then turn them into supplicants – and as you say in your article '…900 dollars for immigrants…' vs '…7000 dollars for aboriginals…' is the starting point for the argument. The implication here is that a reasonable objective would be to get everyone up to the 7000 a year. Might a better objective to be to get everyone to zero, instead?

The basis of immigration should not be to rustle up as many warm bodies as you can and get them over here so they can continue or enhance their begging careers, it should be to encourage people to come who wish to finance their own transportation, have a little money to start out with, and want to work, in jobs that exist.

If they want to come, under those curcumstances, they will. It worked before, and it cost tens of billions less than it does now. And by the tenor of your article, it's not working now anyway.

by SMDAVEY
Jan 27 2009
9:30 AM

Yussi, who's to say how multicultural we need to be? Is there some benchmark we're trying to reach that no one told me about? In the long term canada does need immigration, but there are times (for example during a recession) where it wouldn't be fair to Canadians or new immigrants to keep levels of immigration this high. And the last thing we need is another government program that attempts to create equality, while actually giving one group an artificial leg up over another.

by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
9:41 AM

Mr. Griffiths,

Thank you for trying to open a reasoned discussion on immigration.

You talk of the need to reduce immigration levels if we are not prepared to spend the money necessary to ensure their integration. Is this really the only valid reason for reducing immigration? I think not.

There are those who find our high immigration levels a source of national pride – but there are those who find it a source of national discgrace. Disgrace at the suicidal nature of it, the lack of self-respect it demonstrates. Canadians of traditional heritage are drowning themselves. The one useful lesson of multiculturalism is that all peoples have a right to their identities – yet we are in the process of drowning ours out. When we tried to do it to the Indians, it was a terrible crime. Then we turn around and invite the world to do the same thing to us – if Canada were a person it would merit therapy for its self-destructive behaviour.

An economic necessity in the face of reduced brith rates? A popular story – but (a) I've not seen a single proof of this; and (b) how committed is Canada to sustainability of we admit that our economy can only function if we have constant, unrelenting population growth? More people, more people, and ever more people, or we all go broke? Something's very very wrong with this picture.

Of course all this is buoyed by modern Canadian history rewriting – this myth that Canada has always been about diversity. It's a patent lie. On one page immigration proponents will wail about laws in effect just 50 years ago with the intention of keeping Canadian demographics primarily European, then on the next page they'll tell us how Canada has always been a doors wide open to everyone shangrila so we're morally obligated to continue that way forever. Basically, this rewritten history serves to bury the existence of a Canadian people, wipes them from the national memory. So that people like Yussi can declare someone's nation “not multicultural enough” without realizing that in doing so he's calling for the subsuming of an entire people under tsunamis of newcomers. We'd be evil to wish that on anyone else, but in Canada you can wish that on traditional Canadians and be considered progressive.

by chuck80
Jan 27 2009
9:42 AM

Ethics cuts both ways….

If we can't afford the numbers we currently take in, your proposal is “then governments and taxpayers will need to spend significantly more on the countrys settlement systems for the foreseeable future”.

Of course, there's always the OTHER option of reducing newcomer levels, especially for those groups that resist learning one of our languages and resist integration by gaggling together in little enclaves around the country.

Somehow, it is always the responsibility of “Canadians” to do more when it comes to immigration.

I'd like to see a survey done on exactly how many Canadians give a rat's ass what reputation we have around the world regarding immigration levels.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
10:03 AM

chuck80 > I'd like to see a survey done on exactly how many Canadians give a rat's ass what reputation we have around the world regarding immigration levels.

Surveys repeatedly show that about 2/3 of Canadians think we accept too many people. But instead of enacting the will of the people, the ideologues try to figure out how to change our minds by inflating the pro-immigration mythology.

This is a typical problem in western countries. Why do you think France is having the troubles they're having? The French people overwhelmingly did not want massive immigration from North Africa. But the ideologues decided they knew better – they would give it to them anyway and they would darn well learn to live with it. Today's mess in France is the result when the special interests try to impose their ideology on the people.
[]
by vilda
Jan 27 2009
10:20 AM

Immigration's policy is a thorny issue and Canada's native funding program has never worked. Australia's exceptional immigration policy is one which our gov't could well learn from. Thank you
[]
by Sassylassie
Jan 27 2009
10:22 AM

England and Germany have admited that Immigration has no benifits and the cost associated with lack of integration is costing them billions. Multiculture utopian policies are being blamed but the fact is a majority of Immigrants that come to the west for a better life have no intention of integrating into our culture and society. They snear and degrade our culture whilst flaunting and practicing their tribal medieval cultures.

The analogy that we need immigrants to replace those retiring is bogus socialist propaganda, as industries die their natural death thousands are rendered out of work and these workers will replace the retiring workers. This cycle has been taking place for decades, we may have a shortage of skilled workers but the last thing we need is more general labours.

There is only one culture in Canada, Canadian Culture all other cultures are welcome to add to that culture in a positive way, however; we cannot continue to tolerate inferior cultural practices by looking the other.

I'd like to see legislation enacted that could revoke citizenship if individuals refuse to accept our culture and our laws. If they can't leave their holy wars and ole feuds outside of Canada I don't want them bringing them into my Country.
[]
by avartist
Jan 27 2009
10:30 AM

We have done well on turning Canada into a third world country with our current immigration policies. I personally liked this country the way it used to be before we had multicutralism shoved down our throats.

More people means more gridlock, more pollution (air and water), more strain on our already overburdened infrastructure, more destuction of natural areas and farmland as we build new subdivisions, factories and highways. Growth cannot go on forever. Once we run out of supplies of cheap energy (oil and gas) everything is going to come to a grinding halt. There are no replacements.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
10:54 AM

More on this fantasy that we NEED immigration or we'll all go broke: you'll notice that the richest nations in the world, in terms of GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parity, include:

Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Finland, Cyprus, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia…..

All countries with little or no diversity and small populations.

Large populations and high diversity are NOT necessary for economic success.

By strange coincidence, some of the poorest nations on the earth are….the most populated, and with the fastest growing populations.
[]
by ezbeatz1986
Jan 27 2009
10:57 AM

The argument that we need high immigration numbers because we have low fertility rates and an ageing population is absurd.

First, immigrants are usually older people to begin with since they need qualifications, experience, money, and to go through a several year long application process.

Second, immigrants adopt a fertility rate of those born in Canada (about 1.5/6).

Third, immigration is not a solution to low fertility. The solution to low fertility rests in a fair tax policy, transparency, accountability, and fairness in family law and child custody, increase in personal sperm and egg banks (the success rate for freezing an egg is 34% now), a decrease in the cost of living (particularly housing and transportation costs), and a recognition that the family is better at raising kids than the state.

Fourth, many of the nations we get are immigrants are rapidly developing nations which means that Canada will have a harder time in the future attracting immigrants. Nations like India and China won't just retain their own people but they'll be attracting huge numbers from neighboring countries.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
11:04 AM

avartist > I personally liked this country the way it used to be before we had multicutralism shoved down our throats.

Now THERE's a courageous statement.

Decades of political correctness have made saying this simple statement very difficult in polite Canadian society. But I suspect that many many people who knew pre-multiculturalism Canada feel the same. I bet even some who were born too late to see it wish they could again.

It was truly a great country with a great history and heritage. A heritage that deserved to be preserved and perpetuated. Instead we dreamed up multiculturalism out of thin air and ever since have been busy trying to bury the old nation so no one will remember what really was.
[]
by alancoman
Jan 27 2009
11:30 AM

Rudyard Griffiths is wrong again, as he was in the previous article he mentions. I agree with the problem, but completely disagree with the solution.

1) Immigrants might have initial problems learning the language, but even as Barack Obama mentioned in his book (he was talking to Google founders and wondered why most engineers were Chinese or Eastern Europens) the professional skills of most immigrants are way above the skills of the locals (hint: a lazy unmotivated government run educational system produces very low quality graduates). I have a friend who immigrated from Eastern Europe that was barely making it there, but here was one of the most popular students because he helped most other students with their homework.

2) Low income rates are due to the fact that the government wants to give the illusion of spreading the immigrants as wide as possible. Low income rates are experienced by immigrants who should not be considered economic immigrants. They come from relatively failed states in Middle East or Africa and enjoy better life here on welfare (or poverty) than hard working “upper class” citizen in their country of origin.

If Rudyard would have bothered to select only immigrants from Europe, India, China and SE Asia, the result would show a completely different picture.

3) Actually the 40% of the professionals that leave go either to US or back home for a much higher wage and salary growth. While Canada struggled in the last years with 1-2% growth, India grew at 7%, Eastern Europe at 5% and China at above 10%. Also punishing taxes in Canada force immigrants (including myself) to try and find better ways of improving themselves. These people don't leave because they are not integrated. They leave because they are already integrated, but can benefit more by integrating somewhere else.

4) It looks like in this country there is a conspiracy between the lower classes and the top class to screw the middle class. And the middle class likes it by voting for those who work for their destruction and destitution (left wing parties). There are no jobs because there is not enough investment. There is not enough investment because there are no incentives (high taxes) and oligopolies (govt sanctioned).

5) Immigrants don't need more government money. They need more incentives to succeed. Lower taxes, less barriers to improve their career. When even hair stylists are regulated by the government and when workers from Ottawa can't work in Gatineau or vice versa, I don't see why people should keep their motivation to succeed, when failing is so sweet. When an undergraduate in history and philosophy and history can teach mathematics in high school by going to teachers' college, but a math major or physics major can't, you know something is wrong with this country.

High taxes are the ultimate proof of social engineering. Erect them and you will see how your people start slacking off. Where there is a demand (for poor people), there will be a supply. Anti-poverty programs are expert at producing it.

As Milton Friedman put it, if you want to get rid of the dessert, put the government in charge of protecting it.
[]
by GuyTron
Jan 27 2009
12:16 PM

No frackin way dude! You say $900 per person of the tax money I payed goes toward each immigrant and $7000 per year on each Aboriginal but you don't say what the services they get are and how much each non-Aboriginal Citizen receives. If all Canadians are to be treated equally then you need to use average citizens not Aboriginals as the target. As far as I am concerned Aboriginals need to be weaned off their free lunch, and immigrants should pay their way. If they can not afford to come here, they should not come here. I would make a small exception for legitimate refugees but anyone else should speak at least one official language and be able to afford to get their education updated in order to secure employment. I never got any hand outs when I was struggling to enter the work force and neither should anyone else unless you want to send me a cheque for the same amount I would have gotten had I not been born in Canada to a non-Aboriginal family that has been here since 1759.
[]
by Jackal1234
Jan 27 2009
12:30 PM

they're letting in the wrong people.

theres millions of hard working people in the former soviet union and its neighbours who would be ecstatic at the chance to live here. just about any european country. why do we not let them in? they wouldnt be trying to rip our country apart from the inside , unlike the *Cartoon* people
[]
by owngoal
Jan 27 2009
12:39 PM

Here's an immigration policy for you. Only immigrants that speak one of our languages, that can work hard and bring something worthwhile to this fair land should be allowed to come in. There are thousands out there willing and able to meet these requirements.

Canada is not a social experiment, Canada is not a multicultural mosaic. Canada is a Christian Social democratic Anglo Saxon state.

It respects minorities and makes room for them. It always has.

People don't envy Canada's muliticulturalisn. They envy our sense of fairness, opportunity, law and order and relative stability. It was our Anglo Saxon, and to a lesser degree, Franco founders that gave us these values.

It's time to push back against “Cafeteria Canadians” who like to pick and choose and treat Canada like a doormat.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
12:54 PM

owngoal > “People don't envy Canada's muliticulturalisn. They envy our sense of fairness, opportunity, law and order and relative stability…”

Very true. Anyone who has travelled much (and by that I mean been immersed in other countries, not just sat on the beach in Cancun) knows that people the world over LIKE their nations and their identities.

Try this – go to a country with a well defined identity, and tell them that this will not do – they should be more multicultural. Being too “whatever” is bad, wrong, and they should immediately embark on a program to ensure that their kind becomes a minority in all of their largest cities within a century. Tell them it's wrong to have a national identity and they should replace it with multiculturalism's non-identity. They, as a people, are to exist no more, replaced by a vague notion of love of diversity as their sole defining characteristic.

Most people around the world will either think you're crazy or run you out of town. And they're right to.
[]
by majorpriapus
Jan 27 2009
12:57 PM

owngoal re: “Canada is not a multicultural mosaic. Canada is a Christian Social democratic Anglo Saxon state.”

Je ne suis pas totalement daccord avec toi… ;-)
[]
by majorpriapus
Jan 27 2009
12:58 PM

owngoal re: “Canada is not a multicultural mosaic. Canada is a Christian Social democratic Anglo Saxon state.”

Je ne suis pas totalement daccord avec toi… ;-)
[]
by majorpriapus
Jan 27 2009
1:00 PM

Rudyard Griffiths or Rudyard Kipling?

Bravo! … bang on target.

Certain multi-ethnic neighborhoods in Canadian urban centers are witnessing a scandalous 30% failure rate in high school.

These neighborhoods can best be described as Canadian banlieus representing demographic ticking time-bombs not at all dissimilar to the marginalized multi-ethnic banlieus that exploded in France all too recently.

We ignore European precedent at Canada's peril!
[]
by ZeeBC
Jan 27 2009
1:33 PM

“The astonishing fact that 40% of professional male immigrants leave Canada permanently within 10 years fails to register as the massive policy failure it is because it contradicts our unquestioning faith in the countrys ability to integrate record numbers of newcomers year after year. ”

>> Translation: “Permanently” means returning to low tax countries of birth to accumulate wealth. As old age and ill health approach they return to their 2nd nationality for the benefits.

” … If we continue to accept 250,000 or more newcomers annually for economic reasons, or to maintain our boasting rights as the worlds immigration per-capita leader, then governments and taxpayers will need to spend significantly more on the countrys settlement systems for the foreseeable future.”

>>Translation: “for economic reasons” is code for “Liberal voters”.

“Boasting rights” Boasting rights? Why would anyone boast about trashing their culture and embracing some foreign polyglot ones? And pay to do it to boot? All cultures are not equivalent. Canada needs to return to the point system prior to Trudeau.
[]
by crocodile dundee
Jan 27 2009
1:47 PM

Yussi, if Canada isn't multicultural enough for you, then go back to where you came from!! Why should Canada change to be like the place you came from? If it is so great there, then stay there!

And you want me as a taxpayer to pay more so I can destroy my culture and promote yours! Get real.

This idiocy of others coming here and trying to change it to the 'old country' is destroying Canada.
[]
by Immigration Watch Canada.org
Jan 27 2009
1:48 PM

Mr. Griffiths:

Numbers are the major issue. Between the 1920's and 1990, Canada had a policy of lowering immigration levels if unemployment was rising. The immigration policy introduced in 1990 by Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall abandoned that tradition.

McDougall shamelessly stated that she would raise immigration levels to 240,000 so that her Progressive Conservative Party could compete with the Liberal Party for the immigrant vote. Ms. McDougall also ignored her own gov't's research which told it that immigration was not the best way to solve problems arising from an aging population. She also ignored the research that told her that if Canada was looking for an economic stimulus, immigration would not deliver it.

Canada's immigration industry (lawyers, advocates, multiculturalists, and diversity advocates have mythologized and sugar-coated what McDougall did. Subsequent immigration ministers and their governments have imitated what she did.

The truth is that McDougall introduced Canada to 18 consecutive years of high

immigration (over 240,000+ per year). This is an abnormality in our immigration history.

The result has been that Employment Equity programmes have displaced many Canadian-born from employment. Our major immigrant-receiving areas are now well on their way to becoming environmental disasters. And the overwhelming of many towns and cities by the immigrant flood has been a true cultural embarrassment for the long-term residents in those places.

Most Canadians will accept some immigration. But the numbers have to be in Canada's interest. For the past 18 years, that has not been the case.

Canada did not need most of the 5 million people it took since 1990. It certainly does not need another 5 million.

If ever Canada had an issue that the majority has to work on, dramatic immigration reduction is it.

What has happened to Canada is the result of 18 years of shamelessly pursuing the immigrant vote and , in the most perverted way, depicting that as a world-class social experiment in multiculturalism and diversity.

Immigration Watch Canada.org
[]
by ZeeBC
Jan 27 2009
2:04 PM

“It was truly a great country with a great history and heritage. A heritage that deserved to be preserved and perpetuated. Instead we dreamed up multiculturalism out of thin air and ever since have been busy trying to bury the old nation so no one will remember what really was.”

>>I don't think it was out of thin air Fred_001. I think it was the deliberate intentions of Trudeau, Pelletier and Marchand. The supposedly 3 wise men. The intent being to water down the influence of English Canada so as to preserve French Canada. By Balkanizing English Canada with masses of different cultures the French Quebec bloc would emerge as the strongest of the lot. Bill 101 helped to English cleanse Quebec. Political correctness exacerbates the mess.
[]
by crocodile dundee
Jan 27 2009
4:07 PM

The mess caused by multiculturalism/massive immigration from non-European countries can be directly blamed on Trudeau and the Liberals who instituted this idiotic policy in the 1960s and 70s. They sought the immigrant vote in order to keep themselves in power, not because it was in the best interests of Canada. We've already seen the results of this….ethnic ghettoes, political correctness run wild, foreigners getting Canadian passports of convenience, billions spent on multiculturalism, diversity programs, ESL…..and for what?? As one other poster has noted, if someone were to move to another country and tell the natives that they had to change their customs to accomodate 'newcomers' and that the existing culture was on no value and must be changed, they would be laughed at. Why should it be any different in Canada (or other western countries where the same divisive policies are in existence)??

The argument that 'Canada is a nation of immigrants therefore we must accept more immigrants' is the biggest pile of cr*p! Every country is a nation of immigrants! Just because people were allowed to come in the past doesn't mean it must remain that way forever.
[]
by Yussi
Jan 27 2009
4:21 PM

Some of the posters here are really confused.

FRED_001, what makes Canada unique is that we are by design not a nation state but a multicultural mosaic of different communities. So lets talk about Canada, not compare it to other countries with incompatible goals.

SMDAVIS, no matter what's the optimal level, it certainly is not what we have now where more than 80% of the country is white/western: one colour, one culture. White people are only 8% of the world – if Canada is to truly represent the world, we should talk about and address the imbalance. Otherwise multiculturalism is just empty talk.

crocodile, Canada is officially supportive of all cultures. If you don't like it then it is *you* who should consider leaving.
[]
by owngoal
Jan 27 2009
4:54 PM

Majorpripus says he or she doesn't agree with my comments. Well that's just fine.

Thanks for making my point for me by the way. English Canada accepts French culture, like many others, as a junior partner. It always has.

This is an Anglo Saxon land because General Wolfe defeated Montcalm. In fact Wolfe's surrender terms for the French were most generous. An attitude and generosity that carries on to this day.

Since1759 we speak English and have British values. The truth hurts doesn't it Majorpriapus?
[]
by Sassylassie
Jan 27 2009
5:14 PM

Yussi wrote: crocodile, Canada is officially supportive of all cultures. If you don't like it then it is *you* who should consider leaving.

End quote:————————–

We most certainly do not support all other cultures especially cultures stuck in the seventh century. We've tolerated medieval cultural practices because we were forced to by the Liberal Party and HRCs, those days are long gone. It's not our job to accomadate new immigrants, it's there responsibility to integrate into Canadian Culture not ours to adapt to their backwater cultures.
[]
by prometheus1
Jan 27 2009
6:26 PM

For once, I actually agree with most of the posters here. Canada is a majority White and Christian society and that character should always be reflected in our immigration policies so that this group is maintained as the majority. Immigration should NOT equal invasion. Does this mean that non-whites or non-Christians aren't welcome? No, it simply means that these groups should be kept at much smaller percentages than the dominant group.

No other society in the world would allow the dominant racial, ethnic or linguistic group to be outnumbered by other groups. Tell the people of ANY country that the dominant racial or linguistic group should allow itself to be outnumbered by those of different groups and they will tell you that you're insane. Take Jamaica for instance, with a population of around 2.8 million citizens, the overwhelming majority of whom are black. Do you think they would that allow 2 million Chinese or Indian immigrants? There would be blood in the streets!!!!!! We should NEVER allow that to happen here. It's absolutely unacceptable.

I notice that alot of the posters here are using Western Europe (England, France,The Netherlands, Germany) as examples of cases where native populations are being swamped by immigration but there are better examples of how this crime (and yes, ethnic cleansing is a crime) can lead to racial conflict and violence.

In Fiji, hundreds of thousands of indentured Indian laborers were imported to the islands by its British colonial rulers for such an extended period of time that they soon grew to outnumber the natives. Does anybody need to ask what happened next? Massive unrest and violence spread throughout the islands, with native Fijians going on anti-Indian killing sprees. As a result, ethic Indians fled the islands by the thousands, leaving the country once again with a Melanesian majority. Now, the country has regained some stability but only with an extraordinary amount of unnecessary bloodshed.

In Yugoslavia, hundreds of years Albanian immigration into Kosovo (the birthplace of the Serbian nation) led to native Serbs being outnumbered in their own land, not only ethnically and linguistically but religiously (the Serbs are Orthodox Christian and the Albanians, Muslim) Again, do I have to remind you what happened next? The Albanians decided that they wanted to separate from Serbia and solicited help from middle eastern jihadists to commit atrocities against the Serb minority and terrorize them into leaving. Civil war broke out and Serbian troops were sent in. Eventually, the Serbian government decided it had only two ugly choices: ethnically cleanse the region of Albanians or lose the territory. We know what they chose.

The worst part of this is that the West(including Canada) decided to support the separatist Albanians and bomb the Serbs into giving up the region, which they did. Now, if that wasn't enough interference, the west, in its infinite wisdom, decided to give Kosovo independence.

Any guesses as to how the Serbian minority felt about that decision? The remaining Serbs, created their own republic within Kosovo where they are the majority and called it Republica Serbska and are going to ask for, can you guess?……independence from Kosovo. Not only does this serve as a reminder of Abraham Lincoln's famous words ” separation begets separation” but it shows the dangers inherent in flooding native populations with foreigners. It can only lead to racial antagonism, chaos and bloodshed, the very things that we should be striving to avoid!!!

So Yussi, you are dead wrong with the statement that “Canada is not nearly as multicultural as it should be”. Canada has no obligation to be multicultural!!!
[]
by phatti
Jan 27 2009
6:34 PM

Canada is the fatherland with many dads. Did you ever meet that kid.
[]
by phatti
Jan 27 2009
6:40 PM

The tasering of the polish immigrant arriving in the Vancouver airport, or the national post delivery driver being stomped and beaten by off duty cops in Vancouver while they shouted racial epithets speaks volumes for the real state of Canada immigration policy, immigrants take note.
[]
by GuyTron
Jan 27 2009
6:53 PM

Yussi – You are just so wrong on so many levels and in so many ways it defies reality in the amount of time it would take to respond to them all. Multiculturalism is a Socialist vision of Canada that a majority of Canadians do not support beyond accepting people of different cultures the right to practice their culture at their own expense as long as it does not interfere with any other persons rights. If anyone starts forcing their culture or beliefs on other Canadians they will see a very dark future for their cultures survival in this country. As Robin Williams once said “Canadians are not nice, they are polite.” Trust me when I tell you that as a Cristian Based society we are tolerant by default and resist confrontation, but back us into a corner and we will strike back like feral wolverines.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 27 2009
10:50 PM

Yussi > what makes Canada unique is that we are by design not a nation state but a multicultural mosaic of different communities.

That certainly is the official propaganda of recent years. But it's a lie. Worse, it's a racist lie.

In the over 400 years since Cartier leading up to ~1965, over 95% of all people ever to come to what is now Canada were from just 5 or 6 countries. Neighbouring, European countries with long, intermeshed ethnic and cultural histories. Compared to global diversity, these were little more 'diverse' than cousins at a wedding. The nation was founded by just two of them – French and British. So intent on having a nation state were they, that they fought war over it and the British won. And Canadians were unabashedly determined to keep it that way.

It was as recently as ~1950 that Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in parliament: “There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” And he was right.

So this “mosaic by design” is a pack of lies – historical revisionism – a fairy tale.

But what makes it a racist fairy tale is this: every time you repeat it, you deny the true existence of a distinct Canadian people and their true history. You spread the false belief that there never existed a nation state of Canadians with an identity of its own. To deny the very existence of a people is the worst kind fo racism.

Yussi > …- if Canada is to truly represent the world…

Why should Canada represent the whole world? Personally, I don't want it to. Every other nation in the world gets to have an identity that you would have represented in Canada – why can't Canada have its own identity like everyone else? Once again – anti-Canadian racism. In one sentence you confer recognition on all the other peoples of the world, and bury Canadian identity under them.

Do you have a problem with China being “too yellow”, or Nigeria being “too black”? Of course not. THAT would be truly ignorant racism. But you'll trot out the insanity that Canada is “too white” and think yourself progressive?!?!? Racism, pure and simple.

Yussi, your position is basically well-intentioned ethnic cleansing. Anti-Canadian, anti-white racism.
[]
by noleftturn
Jan 27 2009
11:12 PM

Guy Tron – good post. Canadians dislike it when our good natures are taken advantage of by immigrants. Immigrants can keep their cultural heritage and celebrate it in their own community, but without a dime of municipal, provincial, or federal tax support. The only three holidays that should enjoy government funding are Victoria Day, Canada Day, and Remembrance Day events. Immigrants need to learn to speak English, accept our laws, and stop insisting our government take action whenever something goes wrong in the old country. Also, no cash under the table deals to avoid paying taxes. If I have to pay, you have to pay.
[]
by ZeeBC
Jan 27 2009
11:22 PM

“Yussi, your position is basically well-intentioned ethnic cleansing. Anti-Canadian, anti-white racism.”

>> ..and politically correct according to the liberal elites.
[]
by aright2lucidity
Jan 28 2009
12:22 AM

GuyTron writes:

“Trust me when I tell you that as a Cristian Based society we are tolerant by default and resist confrontation, but back us into a corner and we will strike back like feral wolverines.”

This reminded of an exchange at an intersection I witnessed some years ago. Some guy not paying attention cuts off another and of course he gets horn-blasted for about 5/10 sec. for it.(I'm sure it scared the bejeebers out of him) As the 'offender' drove away I noticed his plate was from Manitoba (I live in BC) I said out loud “that's right pal….it says 'Beautiful' BC, it doesn't say anything about being 'Friendly'….lol

I think Canada has such a reputation for being “polite” that the world over under-estimates us. Therefore, I have to agree with your statement.
[]
by Yussi
Jan 28 2009
12:45 AM

GuyTron, noleftturn, and others: you seem to confuse your wishful thinking for reality. And the reality is that we are constitutionally multicultural – check the Charter. So it`s you anti-multicultural propaganda that`s really anti-Canadian.

Sassylassie – speak for yourself; way too many We and US in your post. Also, do not insult other cultures.

Freddie – it`s all well and good with Nigeria and Sweden but those are nation states and we are not. I understand you would prefer the pre-Trudeau arrangement but guess what: it is not coming back. You may grow very bitter clinging to it in your mind and screaming that what surrounds you is a pack of lies.
[]
by lowder
Jan 28 2009
7:10 AM

Yussi; Who cares what the constitution says? You are defineing what is and is not Canadian. Trudeau was a goof from the Nation of Quebec that gave that province everything they needed to pretend to be a country and at our expense. English Canada has become so over run and over whelmed with people like you that it feels more like something between Grand Central Station and nothing .Canada was a far better place before official multiculturalism was rammed down our throats. Multiculturalism is the worst thing that ever happened to canada. I speak for myself and I don't feel bad saying that I do not beleive in todays canada. I'll pay my taxes and pay my bills but I refuse to be redefined by politicions that quite often have language police in thier part of canada.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 28 2009
8:03 AM

Yussi > “I understand you would prefer the pre-Trudeau arrangement but guess what: it is not coming back.”

And there we have it – the ugly naked truth.

That you are perfectly aware of the reality of pre-Trudeau Canada, and perfectly happy to bury it. There is your anti-Canadian racism.

Imagine saying “I understand, Nigerians, that you might prefer a Nigerian Nigeria, but I've decided to replace your identity with a multicultural non-identity, and it won't be coming back. Too bad for you.” Pretty ugly, eh? Baldfaced cultural cleansing, robbing an entire people of their identity to suit your ideological whims.

And exactly what you and other pro-multiculturalists do to the Canadian people every time you spew this trash.

Yes, Canadian people. The Charter is nothing more than piece of paper written by a few ordinary, ideologically and politically motivated men just a few years ago. It might define the law of the land du jour, but writing some words on a piece of paper does not replace nearly half a millenium of people-building. You'll gladly recognize a Nigerian identity? Well if we go over to Nigeria and re-write its constitution saying that – poof! – you're now a multicultural state! – the reality of the Nigerian identity, the Nigerian people, does not disappear with the stroke of a pen.

It would be that piece of paper and its supporters that was anti-Nigerian. Trying to rub their existence into the dust, trying to erase their identity from memory. That's exactly what you are doing with your position. Worse than a holocaust denier – you are an existence denier, hiding behind this johnny-come-lately piece of paper to claim that's it, no Canadian identity, it says so here in this paragraph.

You are applying multiculturalism's “final solution” to the Canadian people. You are an instrument of cultural genocide.
[]
by lowder
Jan 28 2009
8:03 AM

Yussi; You can bet you are the one that confuses reality and wishfull thinking. “We and us” is something you will hear more of, and you are the one hurling insults with a lack of respect. I know what Canada my relatives fought for in the the last two Great Wars, one that died in the Royal Canadian Air Force was only nineteen. They're rolling over in thier graves today. Do you think we will roll over with them ?
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 28 2009
8:57 AM

Perhaps even more appropriate than “an instrument of cultural genocide”, for Yussi, more Canadian, would be “modern residential school teacher”.

As he whips Canadians who refuse to let go of their Canadian identity and parrot the praises of the new order. “Bad Canadian! The past is gone! Your people no longer exist. Your homeland belongs to us now. Now you are just one community in a mosaic of diversity lovers! No more Canadian-speak. Must parrot multiculti-speak. Say it! Say it!!!”

It was wrong when we did it to Indians, and we are slowly finding ways to make up for that. That would be one of the defining features of the unique Canadian identity. But that doesn't mean we need to let anyone, including ourselves, do the same to us. Yet that's exactly what multiculturalists seek to do.

And multiculturalism has about as much chance of making the Canadian people forget they are a people as residential schools had of making Indians forget they are Indians.

How's it feel, Yussi, to be the one with the strap beating the heritage out of people to suit your ideological dream? You sound quite pleased with it.
[]
by John Kohos
Jan 28 2009
9:33 AM

Canada was founded by Europeans of English and French descent who somehow found a way to co-exist and establish a country. That is our multi-cultural heritage. And it's here for anyone who wants to join.

And if there are ways to enhance the nature of this club for the benefit of all of its members, it's a good thing. But every club I join doesn't have to alter its nature to accomodate me at the expense of the existing members. It is my responsibility to be an asset.

And If I am rescued and taken in by the members, it is not my place to make demands and try to shame them into living up to my standards.

Ask not what your country can do for you…
[]
by John Kohos
Jan 28 2009
9:46 AM

Successive Liberal governments hung out welcome signs to all house guests from hell to come and abuse the hospitality of its citizens in the name of an ideological policy that shamed and exploited the decent nature of Canadians.

I am seldom more disgusted than when I tune in to the Question Period in the House of Commons and see a chorus of Liberal MPs yelling “Shame. Shame.” at the government, both because they're laughing while they do that and because it is so evident tey have no shame themselves.
[]
by Fred_001
Jan 28 2009
9:50 AM

Kohos > “Europeans of English and French descent … That is our multi-cultural heritage.”

Absolutely. There's multiculturalism, and then there's multiculturalism.

The multiculturalism present in traditional Canadian heritage is extremely limited. It is easily identified. This is just like all peoples everywhere on the planet. No existing people just appeared one day, perfectly homogeneous and fully formed. They all started as a few somewhat similar tribes who melded into one. And even within those peoples, there always remains a bit of internal diversity. Here in the west we ignorantly refer to “the Chinese” as a monlithic ethno-cultural entity, but China includes many sub-ethnicities and variations on culture. But they are still “Chinese”, with a distinct, intact, identity. So it is for traditional Canadians. You might be able to identify the original tribes, but (a) they were incredibly closely related to begin with, and (b) it is the very fact you can idenify them that defines the unique make-up of Canadian identity.

Modern “official multiculturalism”, on the other hand, says that if you can find anything other than a single type of lettuce in the demographic salad, then your salad has no, and never had any, identifiable composition, and you must accept to have any and every form of vegetable thrown in without limit until the original salad is drowned, unrecognizable.
[]
by John Kohos
Jan 28 2009
9:54 AM

There is a line between freedom and anarchy as there is a line between mutli-cultural and no identifiable culture.

Canada is not a culture vacuum waiting to be filled. We are a country founded on joint French-English ancestry forming a mutli-cultural union.

And if I seem to be repeating myself, I guess I must be responding to the same old crap that I am hearing over and over.
[]
by John Kohos
Jan 28 2009
10:19 AM

Well said Fred.
[]
by rossbcan
Jan 28 2009
10:21 AM

@John Kohos

The line between freedom and anarchy is the “rule of law” based on the fact that our far wiser ancestors realized that the power of life and death over your fellows is too great and subject to abuse to be trusted to fallible man. Or, in other words, absolute power corrupts, absolutely. We are far past this line, perhaps beyond the point of no return:

www.strike-the-root.com/…/ross3.html

If the law is solely what democracy says and judiciary interprets then, the Nazi's were democratically elected and, by definition could do nothing illegal and we were legally incorrect in taking them down.
[]
by seine
Jan 28 2009
10:52 AM

rossbcan

I agree with your take, but since we have a democracy, only by present a reasoned and salable plan supported by the majority can the necessary socially stabilizing change be implemented.

The dilemma with immigration is that many of the current crop of new Canadians are from countries where the only means of survival is to buy favors and break the local laws. They have no understanding of peaceful trade with another as they have only learned how to avoid various forms despotism.

The situation could be drastically improved if our bureaucrats could be convinced we'd like to see a 'self-supporting 'clauses in the requirements for entry to Canada.

Then immigrants might be the greatest support one could find to bring about freedom in our society.
[]
by crocodile dundee
Jan 28 2009
11:17 AM

Yussi writes 'crocodile, Canada is officially supportive of all cultures. If you don't like it then it is *you* who should consider leaving.' Hey beanbrain, I was born here, why should I leave because I don't want my culture overrun by millions of people who don't give a crap about Canada?? Typical attitude of you multiculti types…always talking about 'diversity' but have no respect for the 'diversity' of the people born here.

Just because the Marxist Trudeau jammed multiculturalism down our throats through his idiotic Charter doesn't mean Canadians agree with it! The majority of Canadians disagree with our immigration policy….should they all leave, too??

And if Canada is 'too white' for your liking, why did you bother coming here? Oh, couldn't have been for the myriad of social services you get provided by dreaded 'whitey', could it? Why is it that you have no problem taking benefits from and living in a country whose standard of living is one of the highest in the world (created again, by whites) yet the country is 'too white' for your liking??

'White people are only 8% of the world – if Canada is to truly represent the world, we should talk about and address the imbalance. Otherwise multiculturalism is just empty talk.'

The constitution and idiotic Charter make no mention of Canada 'representing the world' so why should Canada change to suit your utopian view of it? Your statement is one of the stupidist I've read regarding immigration. Name one other country in the world that doesn't acknowledge it's own culture but thinks that it should be 'represent the world'?

Rudyard Griffiths: Canada Pays The Price Of Immigration On The Cheap

Related

Must Reads!

Ricardo Duchesne's Latest Books:
Click to Order From Amazon:

Rudyard Griffiths: Canada Pays The Price Of Immigration On The Cheap

Share this:

Related

Must Reads!

Ricardo Duchesne's Latest Books:Click to Order From Amazon:

Ricardo Duchesne's Latest Books:
Click to Order From Amazon: