A recent speech by Prime Minister Stephen Harper received the thumbs down on Little Green Footballs. At issue, were comments made by Harper regarding immigration to Canada. The issue of immigration has been divisive in North America ever since waves of immigrants began arriving on our shores in the early 1900’s. Each wave brings renewed criticism from former immigrants, who for one reason or other, feel threatened.
The current debate swirls less around ethnicity than it does around security and Islamist extremism. At Celestial Junk we look at Harper’s speech, and what it could mean, if anything, to immigrating Muslims, concerned Canadians, and multiculturalism: CLICK
The PM didn’t call for “lots more immigration”. What he said was that “Canada’s diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength.” In other words, not only are immigrants valued and welcome, but immigration issues will be tended to and overseen. This suggests change from the Liberal policy of pandering to immigrants, then turning around to the electorate and rubbing platitudes all over the LPC brand. Stephen Harper’s statement certainly doesn’t suggest any intention to throw upon the doors and abandon the posts.
In the not-so-long run we might have to accept that certain elements of Islam are anathema to Canadian citizenship, but dealing with that is just one consideration involved in tending to immigration issues. Certainly no earthly good good could come from blaming “immigrants” for threats that emerge from a particular group within a particular community.
I suspect we’ll be seeing a better, more sensible and nuanced approach from this new government than we saw from the Liberals. The LPC would have provided stables, hay, mess halls, etc for Attilla the Hun and his men if thir votes would help win a closely contested riding.
Reading only the G&M article, not the actual speech, I don’t see much controversy in the speech.
He is defining (Islamic) terrorism within an ideology that ‘hates open, diverse democratic societies like ours because they want the exact opposite”. Agreed.
They “want societies that are closed, homogeneous and dogmatic” Agreed.
And, he was indirectly asking the Muslim community to reject those ideologies with his comment “and they will be rejected most strongly by those men and women living in the very communities that the terrorists claim to represent”. Very important to make and repeat this statement.
“We have largely avoided ghettoization’…One has to admit the term ‘largely’ which also is a warning against ghettoization.
And, Harper apparently then went on to discuss his ‘Five Points’. The news article was criticizing the fact that Harper was ‘wavering on the Kyoto Accord’ – as if that Accord was Pure Truth rather than money-laundering. And a few other irrelevant things which bothered the journalist’s personal views.
I don’t think that immigration should be curbed; I don’t see how it can be.
But, multiculturalism as the basic ideology must be ended, and an adaptive, evolving, growing assimilation or collaborative development of Canada as a nation, should be encouraged.
MSM reports immigration fee in Ontario is $400,000. There is a waiting list and the funds are held for a period of time by government and applied toward job creation in province.
Even with the exhorbitant fee, allegedly there is a waiting list. It looks like its just coming to light now as opposed to the $1,000/per immigrant application fee that’s been reported in past times.
That’s quite a revenue builder for Ontario. Anyone have further info on this?
Liberals and the Canadian border problem
The Canadian Immigration Problem
by Hal Johnson.
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O’Reilly.
Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. “I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,” said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. “He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left. Didn’t even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. “Not real effective,” he said. “The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn’t give milk.”
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. “A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions,” an Ontario border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though.”
When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the ’50s. “If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age” an official said. Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.
“I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “How many art-history majors does one country need”.
In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. “We’re going to have some Peter Paul and Mary concerts.” And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps.” “The President is determined to reach out,” he said.
From the Manitoba Herald, Canada.
Daniel
The fees are for Right of Permanent Residency and are federal not provincial fees. The fee used to be $975.00. Harper’s gov’t just reduced it to $490.00.
I have no idea what it’s for; I doubt if it’s to ‘make jobs’. I presumed it was for The Bureaucracy.
Here’s my problem with the but we are all immigrants, aren’t we platitude, at what point in time is a nation, whose roots were immigrant, allowed to say so what, the story has changed? After past generations forged a nation through time, sometimes with bloody sacrifice, arrived at common values, laws, culture and language, is there finally a place in history where you can suspend the guilt laden reference to but, all of us are immigrants too. Isn’t it a divisive way of cheapening, by treating a country like an airport, the majority of citizens with multigenerational roots?
Harper, and Bush for that matter, can ask all they want of the Islamic community. The logical response is that the community is doing the best that they can given that their religion doesn’t accept secular principles, and views dhimmis with intolerance and has a widespread problem with mosques as Wahabbist funded.
Reading just the CJunk and G&M parts, I agree with EBD & ET.
Mr. Harper is attempting to be reasonable, from the perspective of his party, and appears to be being honest. That’s what I want from a prime minister. The rest is up to us at the polls.
Compare that to Mr. Martin’s: fundamentally, and let me be clear on this, this is a very important Canadian value, and this is, let me be clear, fundamentally, very important.
That was not reasonable.
Or Mr. Chretien’s: “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.”
That was not reasonable.
Mr. Harper seems to me to be doing the job of prime minister appropriately. It’s still politics, but I think we may have shaken off the mantle of the reign of the old-Canada oligarchy. Only time will tell.
I would assume(dangerous hobby)that WHAT most Canadians really want to witness is the current system we have cleaned up!How many tens of thousands do we presently have here illegally,in hiding,ignoring extradition orders or simply playing the system endlessly?Let’s face reality before any of us(including Harper)wax eloquent on our immigration policies.It’a a bloody mess!
And,here’s a valid concept,how about creating some requirement/incentive for new immigrants to populate rural communities,removing some of the strain ALL our major cities are experiencing(and giving our VITAL rural areas a much needed boost).I do not understand why we,as we generously offer these people a new life,are so afraid to demand anything of them?Does no one remember the sacrifices countless new Canadians historically made to build this country?
It is only human nature,if a new immigrant family is surrouned by a cross section of “experienced Canadians”they will”Canadianize”much more quickly than one seeking out a large colony from their homeland to live/hide amongst.I see far too many examples of immigrants carving out their own little piece of Canada to live amongst”their own”…Just look at the Toronto muslim community if you need an example of the us/them mindset it inevitably creates.
It is a trend that,somehow,MUST be stopped before it damages the very fabric of our society!
canadian observer – you have a valid point, but, there’s a real problem with your suggestion that newcomers settle ‘in the outback’ rather than the main cities.
I don’t think it’s something that can be a ‘top-down’ order.
And I completely agree with you about the ones who are here illegally, abusing our system and us; the ones who claim refugee status, quite falsely. The claim of refugee status have become a sub-business in itself, with ‘firms’ supplying fake IDs, instructions on ‘how to behave like a frightened refugee’, lawyers and so on.
But the key problem with insisting on rural or non-big city settlement is simple. The ‘outback’ doesn’t want them.
For example, in ‘la belle province’ which self-defines itself as The Most Open, the Most Diverse, the Most Tolerant blah blah’, the reality is that almost ALL, and I mean in the 95% ratio of immigrants live in one city. Montreal.
When I first got the stats on this, and asked some quebecois about this, their response was: ‘well, it’s only natural. They want to be with their own kind’.
Got that? ‘Their own kind’. That means that ‘they’ are ‘a different kind’ than Us. And we don’t mix with Others.
So, a major problem for newcomers is that it’s only in the big cities where they can find jobs, where they can find housing, where they can even be accepted and spoken with rather than stared at or ignored.
Hmm, I wonder what would happen if Canada moved all the immigrant support services centers out of the large cities and spread them around little multi-tasking offices all over the country. Would the clients follow?
After all, I haven’t been to a government-owned post office since they put little post offices all over the place, like in 7-11s, and there are a lot of nice folks workin’ at my local 7-11 who are relatively new Canadian citizens.
So maybe something like that would work.
ET,with all due respect,is their ANY topic you do NOT assume to have all the answers on?
I actually find your assumptions on rural Canadians insulting and bigoted!Try standing on Main St.in St.Paul,Ab.,Rossland,BC or how about Kate,s rural Sask. and see how well your”outback”comments are accepted.And,maybe if we got some”ethnic”immigrants into small town Canada,it would expand everybody’s understanding and tolerance.(thus my original point of”mixing”as vital!)
Just because the solutions may be difficult to find does not mean we should dismiss the problem as unfixable and waste our time searching for people to blame instead!
Why do you assume ET assumes that? ET just outlined an additional consideration relevent to your comment. I agree with your criticism of ET’s criticism. But was your drive-by shooting really called for?
“But the key problem with insisting on rural or non-big city settlement is simple. The ‘outback’ doesn’t want them.”
“Got that? ‘Their own kind’. That means that ‘they’ are ‘a different kind’ than Us. And we don’t mix with Others.”
Vitruvious,I don’t know how else to consider these statements as they seem to be his/her own words(not quotes)and I have witnessed ET as being clear in message in the past.
ET,if I am wrong,will be glad to stand up and apologize!This DOES seem out of character for you.
As you your first reference to ET, Canadian Observer, as I mentioned, I agree with you. ET’s point is I think valid in the generic sense, but wanting in practice.
As to your second reference, read the original again, Canadian Observer. ET didn’t say that. ET said “some quebecois” said that. And provided and interpretation.
Canadian Observer: I read ET’s comments, “…That means that ‘they’ are ‘a different kind’ than Us. And we don’t mix with Others” to be her paraphrasing of what Quebecers think about immigrants rather than her own thoughts on the matter.
She, as far as I can see, was pointing out why 95% of immigrants in la Belle Province live and work in Montreal.
Have you ever lived in small-town, rural Canada? While I was at university, I went out with a guy from a small town who went to the same university. Because I was a “big-city girl” I was an “outsider” to a lot of the members of his family and their neighbours. I was tolerated, but God have mercy on me if I had been from a different ethnic background or was a different religion or colour.
I’m not defending, obviously, this mindset, but it’s pretty prevalent in small, homogeneious, rural communities across Canada.
After WWII, European immigrants, notablt from Holland, were required to spend a year as semi-indentured labour on Canadian farms before striking out on their own. This solved the postwar farm labour shortage, integrated the new arrivals into our society and was generally quite successful. One reason that it worked was because the participants were mostly pre-screened for agricultural experience and, more importantly, with the low level of farm mechanization of that era, could be easily trained to do whatever was necessary.
Would it work now? I doubt it. Not many farmers would be eager to turn someone from Mumbai loose on a massive piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars! They can’t even fall back on the time-honoured custom of hiring drifters from Canadian cities during busy periods. Nowdays, training such individuals is generally more trouble than they’re worth.
The same thing applies to mines, where shovels and strong backs have been replaced by computer-contolled machines operated by fewer and fewer miners.
If immigrants were selected from demographic groups already experienced in agricultural or mining techniques similar to ours (e.g. farmering in Khazakstan is a lot like farming in Saskatchewan) Canadian Observer’s idea would probably work, but have any of you ever met a Khazak immigrant?
After WWII, European immigrants, notably from Holland, were required to spend a year as semi-indentured labour on Canadian farms before striking out on their own. This solved the postwar farm labour shortage, integrated the new arrivals into our society and was generally quite successful. One reason that it worked was because the participants were mostly pre-screened for agricultural experience and, more importantly, with the low level of farm mechanization of that era, could be easily trained to do whatever was necessary.
Would it work now? I doubt it. Not many farmers would be eager to turn someone from Mumbai loose on a massive piece of equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars! They can’t even fall back on the time-honoured custom of hiring drifters from Canadian cities during busy periods. Nowdays, training such individuals is generally more trouble than they’re worth.
The same thing applies to mines, where shovels and strong backs have been replaced by computer-contolled machines operated by fewer and fewer miners.
If immigrants were selected from demographic groups already experienced in agricultural or mining techniques similar to ours (e.g. farmering in Khazakstan is a lot like farming in Saskatchewan) Canadian Observer’s idea would probably work, but have any of you ever met a Khazak immigrant?
I remain to be convinced that small-town Canada is as un-neighbourly as the sterotype carricature portrays, Kid. I’m not saying it’s false, and it probably was more likely in the past, I’m just saying that I remain to be convinced it’s true now.
Because it seems to me that smaller communities of good-hearted people tend to be *more* likely to be neighbourly to strangers, in order at least in part to figure out whether they’re good people or not. How the strangers respond to a gracious reception. You know, honesty, trustworthyness, hard working, that sort of thing.
There a plenty of places for bad guys to hide in big cities, immigrant or not. Less so in small towns. I don’t think think that people who should be immigrants to Canada in the first place will have a hard time fitting into her modern small towns.
I think the bigger problem is the statist dependency that has been fostered by the socialists in Canada over the last few decades. That dependency’s trough, that dependency’s nipple (if you’ll pardon my language) is concentrated in Canada’s big cities.
If you want to assimilate people into a state’s existing cultural tradition, your mechanism must be distributed. You can only assimilate lumps by conquest, but grains tend to be happy to be assimilated.
Fortunately, Canada’s current prime minister is not a centralist, so perhaps we’ll see some movement on that front. We shall see.
You know, guys, in the last few days coming here has been like stumbling into a pissing contest at a Faculty Club bar. Entertaining, but a little embarrasing from people I’ve learned to respect. Maybe have a look at the various threads recently through that lens.
I’m not saying it’s bad, (as I do continue to learn a lot), just making an observation. The great “Letters After My Name” punch-up has been hilarious, especially for someone like me who has none. (actually, I do, but they indicate commendations and decorations, not scholarship)
Kudos to ET, Vitruvious, et al for fascinating and intelligent commentary-it’s the kind of content most could not get at any price.
Thanks again, and thanks to our hostess Kate for providing the forum. It’s me that should be buying her many beers!
Cheers!
ET,I will give you the benefit of the doubt,due mainly to Vitruvius’ and new kid’s logical explanations(thank you both).
Please accept my apologies.
Now,back on topic.
new kid,…having spent most my life as a sales rep,I have extensive experience with small-town western Canada.You make valid points,but please consider the following:
Sure there is bigotry in rural Canada(can you extrapolate one family’s behavior though?),but I would argue possibly no more than urban Canada.Again,why else would”ethnics”even in the big cities feel they must keep to their own.
From my experience,if you put a whole community of any immigrants in small town(or big city)Canada,you will create problems.HOWEVER,I submit that if you sprinkled a family here and there,they would be overwhelmed by the love and help offered by locals as they pose no threat to the community and can be SEEN as individuals,not a group.
Also,how better to combat bigotry than to expose the ignorant to the light?(And I’m sorry I am not qualified to comment on rural Quebecers,I would assume they would be not much different,despite what”stats”say)
I came to realize years ago that we ALL have bigotries(like it or not)it is how you handle them that defines your character.
The cultural diversity of this country is a gift for all of us to enjoy.The creation of these numerous and racially defined”sub-communities”is crippling our ability to act as a whole and creates an air of division and mistrust!
“Little Green Footballs” is unworthy of speaking Stephen Joseph Harper’s name. At no time in the article cited did Harper indicate he desired a “lot more” immigration; in fact, Monte Solberg lowered this year’s immigration target. And coming from the gluteous jesterus who gave Bush a free pass on illegal immigration makes it even more retarded.
Harper can’t significantly lower immigration because the immigrants and women and homosexuals will start calling his scary again. The thing is, if immigrants actually voted according to their beliefs, rather than voting for purely short-sighted, selfish reasons, Harper and the CPC would never lose an election. Immigrants are waaay more conservative than Canadians; they just vote Liberal because the Liberals bribe them with race quotas and family reunification.
Final silly thought: shouldn’t we, the coldest and highest energy consuming country in the world, halt immigration to meet our – heh – Kyoto targets? Aren’t greenhouse gases an inevitable negative externality of affluence? And as such, isn’t it immoral to contribute grossly to global warming by turning all of these refugees into consumer / greenhouse gas emitting machines? The great rise in Canadian greenhouse gas emission over the past 15 years correlates strongly with – and is indeed caused by – population growth. Think about it….
Ahh, to be seen as individuals, not a group. We agree, Canadian Observer. Canada’s problem is that her state organs, as is natural for state organs, see us as groups, not individuals. We need to be forever vigilant to judge people as individuals, not as groups.
And in passing, I used to have a big-o-tree in the back yard, but the trunk started to rot, so I had to chop it down to save the house from being fallen on by it.
I’m feeling a little like you’re mugging the messenger, Canadian Observer! I’m simply telling you what I observed and what I experienced over a number of years in one rural community–which, BTW, wasn’t a Western one. The idea that all rural communities are little aw-shucks Mayberries is Utopian and naive. And being a salesperson is different than being someone who spends a lot of time with a group of people from year to year. You’re in and out of the community and, admittedly, you’ve got something to sell–which I didn’t!!
I’m not saying that the family I got to know well weren’t fine people. In many ways they were salt of the earth, they lived within their limited means, they took good care of their family, they went to church every Sunday, and helped neighbours bring in their hay, if they needed help, etc. It’s just that they were somewhat suspicious of people who didn’t do things the way they did. I imagine that could be said about a lot of people.
I’m curious, Mad Mike, by what you mean when you say “the last few days coming here has been like stumbling into a pissing contest at a Faculty Club bar. Entertaining, but a little embarrasing from people I’ve learned to respect. Maybe have a look at the various threads recently through that lens.”
I’ve been doing that, and I’m still not sure what you mean…
canadian observer – the comments I was referring to – ‘happier with their own kind’ – were spoken by various Quebecois to justify why 95% of immigrants settled in and only in, Montreal.
I don’t know if Quebec is unique in its isolationism, but, if you don’t have a French last name, you are ‘suspect’ and not entirely welcome; if you don’t speak French, you are an outsider. Quebec City politicans are quite aware of the paucity of immigrant settlement outside of Montreal.
I think that Quebec is unique in Canada in that an important value of its definition is that it is Not Anglophone; Not Allophone; and Is French. And a particular ‘brand’ of French – no ‘visible minorities’.
A small community, anywhere, also has an isolationist infrastructure. But, it isn’t based on language and background; it’s based on size. It is – small. It is not growing at the same dynamic rate as a large urban centre. Therefore, think of its processes as moving slower-in-time. Small communities are stable; that is their strength and desirability. You can drive into a small town, and five years later, it looks the same. Try that in Toronto.
Time and space ‘function’ differently in small towns. They exclude any interventions that change the pace; that attempt to speed it up; that attempt to change the normative patterns. New people who don’t immediately fit into this temporal and spatial set of behaviour aren’t welcome because they destabilize the region.
Think of a meadow and a new plant species that changes how all the other plants interact with each other. A small town is like a self-sustaining meadow, and new species disrupt that process. It has nothing to do with racism, with bias, with bigotry. It has nothing to do with people being kind or being friendly or unfriendly.
It has everything to do with ‘normative patterns of behaviour and belief’.
In a small town, these normative patterns operate at a particular pace and don’t have the capacity to add, to take away, to change rapidly.
In a large town, what develops, so that it can be a complex adaptive system, is a basic very general set of normative patterns, which are then overlaid with a massive number of levels of completely different and even competing normative patterns. It’s a very complex system, very unlike that simple small town.
So, a complex system or large town can readily handle different types of ‘normative patterns’ or many types of immigrants. A small town can’t, for it has far fewer ‘normative patterns’ and its basic pattern is less general and more specific than it is in a large city.
Bob – rubbish. Kyoto is a money laundering scheme and has nothing to do with global warming.
Your suggestion is indeed a ‘silly thought’.
It did seem to me Kid that the first part of Mike’s comment was peculiar, although technically I should recuse myself due to Mike’s compliment in the second part, which did seem completely reasonable to me 😉
Anyway, I’m certainly enjoying the, it seems to me, relatively considerate atmosphere in these parts lately, so I’m buyin’ beer too. (Why yes, I do recall Kate’s beer-buying comment from a few days ago.)
Cheers to all the good guys I say, peace on earth and goodwill toward men.
ET said: “I don’t know if Quebec is unique in its isolationism, but, if you don’t have a French last name, you are ‘suspect’ and not entirely welcome; if you don’t speak French, you are an outsider. Quebec City politicans are quite aware of the paucity of immigrant settlement outside of Montreal.
I think that Quebec is unique in Canada in that an important value of its definition is that it is Not Anglophone; Not Allophone; and Is French. And a particular ‘brand’ of French – no ‘visible minorities’.”
What total CRAP. Nothing but a bunch of biased personal observations from a person with definite anger management issues AND a major case of KNOW-IT-ALL-ITIS.
Salut, mon ami/e!
My dear ET. I fail to see why it is necessary for you to label as rubbish something that you, and the author thereof, agree is deliberately silly. It is, it seems to me, that kind talk that gets you your reputation for being testy. It’s just my opinion, of course, but I think your deeper arguments, many of which I find valueable, are to some degree ill served by your succumbing to frustrated rhetoric.
Now, returning to the topic, I agree with you on the generic normative and temporal patterns of collective human lump size. It remains, I believe, an open question as to whether or not Canada should do what it can to decentralize immigrants, which (if I’m not mistaken) I’ve been arguing in favour of.
Might you be so kind, Gabby, as to, in addition to expressing your disagreement with a comment, express some sort of opinion on the topic at hand, in order to enable the friends of Small Dead Animals to provide your perspective with due consideration?
new kid,if you are wondering what MM was referring to,all you have to do is read your reaction to my last post…don’t know how I could have made my points any more politely.
You could consider showing me the same courtesy in return and NOT insult my profession or demean my experiences or misrepresent my comments,for that matter.
If this is how you attack someone who is basically agreeing with you,god help anyone who dare have a differing POV than yours.
“The idea that all rural communities are little aw-shucks Mayberries is Utopian and naive.”
You show me ANYWHERE I make this claim!
ET misconstrued: “Bob – rubbish. Kyoto is a money laundering scheme and has nothing to do with global warming.”
Yes ET. That’s why I referred to it derisively, using “heh”. See? Now, you can keep misconstruing this and every post that I make here at SDA as left wing in nature (really, doesn’t a pro-Harper pro-Kyoto comment seem a tad incongruous to you?), or you can accept Jesus’ love in your heart. Which is it?
Paul Martin wanted to bring eight million immigrants to Canada in the next ten years, everybody forgets that. And Iggy will do it too if he gets a chance. Since 50% of immigrants go to T.O. that means four million new Torontonians within a decade, immigrants from the poorest and most violent regions in the world, to a city the mayor himself admits is unsustainable without federal and provincial handouts in the billions.
I don’t need the Fraser Institute or Jim Stamford to tell me if that’s a good idea; it’s a retarded, violent, bloody, expensive idea.
At least Harper the incrementalist is holding the line on numbers; if he can increase the quality of immigrants so much the better.
At the risk of offending some sensitive types, I have to wade into this “Us & Them” debate. I have had the priviledge (?) of working and living across Canada in the big city and hicksville, canada. To those people who think the big city is more tolerant of immigrants try making a wrong turn or getting off the wrong exit or bus stop some time in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. If you aren’t from the neighbourhood then it is very tense all around. The problem is the immigrants tend to clan together where they are most comfortable with others of same whatever and never fully integrate in Canadian society. Today’s groups are different than the previous waves of Polish, Ukrainian, Finn, Italian, Greek immigrants in that they don’t see a need to blend with other Canadians. Blame Trudeau’s multiculturalism if you want but today’s immigrant has no intention of getting out into the Canadian Hinterland (or outback if you must) and becoming an un-hiphenated Canuck.
Getting back to my life experience, even as an introvert, I found that going out into the community you find yourself in can do wonders. No longer are you considered that strange person who keeps to himself down the street. Soon you are one of the gang.
I grew up with the afore mentioned groups of immigrants or more precisely their first generation canadian born kids and I found the experience to be very enriching if not hard on the waist line later in life. I seem to recall as a kid being invited to stay for supper many times and enjoying it all (except for maybe headcheese). Yes these groups all had their own community hall and such but it never was exclusive as too many perogie runs to the hall, or church down the road will attest.
Just my humble opinion…
Mad Mike,I wish you were not right,that does not change the fact that you are.Look at the sideways direction this vital topic keeps taking…and not a troll in site..
TC,your points are well made,the fact you had to start with a disclaimer just goes to show how”UNcondusive”this site is to honest,open-minded expression of beliefs.It is quite disheartening.!
But do we know, Texas Canuck, whether or not that’s what Canada’s new citizens would do, if Canada were to decentralize its immigrant population distribution, and focus the support broadly? I’m just asking: to what degree is it the case that immigrants go to big cities because that’s where the state tells them to go?
Stand by, Canadian Observer, Mad Mike said “Kudos to […] for fascinating and intelligent commentary — it’s the kind of content most could not get at any price.” That doesn’t seem to fit in with your claim.
What’s sideways? We’re just discussing how Canada should go about integrating its necessary and valueable immigrants. Relax.
Vitruvius, I have read far more “direct” or should I say offensive comments here at SDA directed at some commenters, far more “earthy” than my comment on ET’s opinion (and that’s all it is, an OPINION, not IRREFUTABLE INFALLIBLE DATA). I’m sure that s/he is very well equipped to defend himself. S/he will probably lament my use of “ad hominems”, one of her/his favourite dismissals of someone else’s opinion.
Just because a comment is lenghty does not make it valid.
I admit, perhaps I was too quick to get angry in order to defend the province that welcomed me as an immigrant many, many years ago.
http://www.info-immigration.com/
«Plus des deux tiers des immigrants (68%) ont un emploi qui correspond à leurs compétences après cinq ans de vie au Québec, résume le chercheur qui a reçu l’aide de Tristan Cayn, cosignataire de cette importante étude. C’est une bonne nouvelle, car il est rare que des immigrants occupent par la suite un emploi de niveau inférieur.»
“More than two-thirds (68%) of immigrants have a job that matches their qualifications after five years of their living in Quebec, summed up the researcher who was helped by Tristan Cayn, co-author of this study. Those are good news, because it is unlikely that immigrants will later occupy a lower level job.”
My apologies to Bob; I thought his post meant that he was Pro-Kyoto.
As for ‘sending’ new immigrants to the hinterland, I don’t see how a state, at least Canada, can order an immigrant to settle anywhere. I mean I know the state CAN do so, but, would we want a state that operates that way?
It is a fact that most Canadian cities are clustered, as is well known, about 200 km from the American border. It is a fact that most newcomers are not going to want to live in the far North. And, it is also a fact that many people who already live in the north, don’t want to live in the south!
I think that Canada can take any number of immigrants, with one ‘caveat’. We must move from multiculturalism to assimilation. At the moment, we can get new immigrants who never learn a word of English but remain locked in their ‘multicultural communities’. The children learn English but, again because of multiculturalism, remain affiliated first, with their Country of Origin.
Multiculturalism is an enormous error. It means that we never, ever, define What it Is To Be Canadian. We always and only refer to people as immigrants, and define them by their Country of Origin.
WE have to define what it is to be Canadian. So far, this description is non-existent.
“You know, guys, in the last few days coming here has been like stumbling into a pissing contest at a Faculty Club bar.”
Mad Mike
Sorry Vitruvius if I confused you,was referring strictly to his original point of the seemingly inescapable petty attacks regularly occurring here in place of acceptance of others’views.
BTW,you seem to grasp better than most here exactly what the problem is.Too many of the same backgrounds living together in faceless groups and not really experiencing the true diversity of this nation for themselves.Rural or urban,we need diversity in EVERY community for multi-culturalism to work(which it can under the right guidance).Diversifying some service outlets,as you suggested,seems a logical starting point to me.
ET,how about just finding creative ways to encourage them first?
…Now,let’s see who I can accidentally offend next…
I don’t have a problem with immigration since the 1980s, it’s the immigrants from the 1670s on that cause all the problems. Wish there’d been stricter rules then.
Well that does sound, at least on the surface, like good news Gabby, so I’m glad to hear it. However, it makes no progress on the matter of whether or not 95% of Quebec’s immigrants live in Montreal, which was, I believe, ET’s original claim, that you later complained about.
Canadian Observer,I’m sorry if I hit a sensitive nerve. I didn’t mean to. And in no way did I mean
to “insult [your]profession or demean [your] experiences or misrepresent [your] comments…”
I was simply trying to point out that if you are a salesman, you would have a different relationship to people you were selling to than the relationship I would have as someone living in/observing a small-town community from the “inside.” I don’t see how my expressing this demeans your profession, and that certainly wasn’t my intent. The explanation marks were to denote a little humour, which you, obviously, didn’t see that way.
I think that ET’s example of a meadow, and what happens when you introduce new flora and/or fauna into it is instructive. I’m not sure that “if you sprinkled a family here and there,they would be overwhelmed by the love and help offered by locals as they pose no threat to the community and can be SEEN as individuals,not a group” is what would happen.
My surprise in the small community I spent so much time in is how little actual individualism there really was. Each person had their own personality, which was honoured, but if you stepped too far outside the local ‘norms’ of behaviour, you felt a figurative slap to get back in line. And most did, pretty fast.
I definitely agree with you that “The cultural diversity of this country is a gift for all of us to enjoy.” We just have to find a way of bringing it all together for the good of everyone.
I have been born and raised in Quebec and have lived in both “hicksville” and in Montreal and am now living in the Outaouais region (at border to Ottawa). I find many Quebecers to be extremely racist, especially in the rural area that I grew up in (Laurentians), maybe because it’s very white and they are afraid of what they don’t understand. I found the separatists that I have met to be more racist than most (i.e. Bernard Laundry’s comments). I can’t imagine a “spattering” of immigrants throughout rural Quebec, I don’t think it would be well tolerated. Just my 2 cents worth from my personal experience….
gabby – my comment, as vitruvius pointed out, referred to the location of most immigrant newcomers in Quebec – and that location is Montreal. I’ll have to look for the statistical page; I remember being stunned by the fact that the majority of non-francophone, ‘other language’ newcomers to Quebec, were located in only one city.
As for encouraging immigrants to settle in the ‘other cities’, other than the Big Three of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, I think that Vitruvius’ idea of dispersal of services is good, but not enough.
The greatest percentage of immigration to Canada is from Asian countries – China, S. Korea, Phillipines, etc. These people can be highly skilled and particularly in the information fields – and – very hard working and focused on education. They want to work within these fields, such as information technology, communication development, and research in medicine, pharmaceuticals etc,etc. They have to go where these businesses and research centres are. And, that’s heavily in the big cities.
Then, the ‘middle group’, a more average group, are entrepreneurial; they want to set up the small businesses. Again, these businesses are most viable in larger cities.
And finally, the newcomer requires a certain amount of support for at least a decade or two. The large cities provide that – both with the neighbourhood which sells familiar foods, where local newspaper in, eg. Chinese, Korean, are published. And, the large cities provide services to these people, eg., even hospitals will provide written and oral assistance in a variety of languages.
So, how can an immigrant from a non-English speaking background move easily to a small rural town? How can an immigrant with skills in the high tech industry, find work in a small rural town?
Vitruvius, I appreciate your assuming the mantle of “peacemaker.” However, what I objected to in ET’s post is her/his depiction of Quebec as a monolothic, intolerant, verging on racist, society. Here are ET’s words once again:
«I don’t know if Quebec is unique in its isolationism, but, if you don’t have a French last name, you are ‘suspect’ and not entirely welcome; if you don’t speak French, you are an outsider. Quebec City politicans are quite aware of the paucity of immigrant settlement outside of Montreal.
I think that Quebec is unique in Canada in that an important value of its definition is that it is Not Anglophone; Not Allophone; and Is French. And a particular ‘brand’ of French – no ‘visible minorities’.»
Notice the words used: «isolationism … suspect … not entirely welcome … outsider … particular ‘brand’ of French … no ‘visible minorities’ …
That has not been my experience. I do not think that ANY ethnic group, nationality, race, colour, creed, etc. etc. has a monopoly on vice or virtue. That is why it angered me to see my hosts – the people of Quebec – being portrayed in such an untrue way.
Now I must take my leave – to watch one of ET’s favourite singers: Celine Dion. Ta!
Well, gabby, I’ll stand by my view of Quebec. Not Montreal; Montreal is unique in Quebec and, as the only city with any relevant statistical percentage of non-European residents, it doesn’t fit into my outline of Quebec. But, the rest of Quebec sure does!
Why does one ‘have’ to like Celine Dion? Why is that important to you? I don’t. I consider her voice a screech and her lifestyle tacky. If I like Jacques Brel (as I do) does that mean that I also approve of Belgian politics?
I don’t approve of Quebec’s politics, its socialism, its unionism, its isolationism, its holding the ROC to ransom with its incessent demands – and – I maintain that it is hostile to non-francophones. That includes its official unilingualism, its ‘language police’, as well as the reality that almost all non-European immigrants are clustered in one city.
Here’s a few stats; I’ll find the particular one for Montreal eventually (had it last year).
These are all stats can figures.
Immigrant population.
Quebec City 19685
Sherbrooke 6,855
Trois Rivieres 2,070
Montreal 621,885.
And most of these are European immigrants.
Foreign born proportion
Quebec 2.9
Sherbrooke 4.6
Trois Riviers 1.5
Montreal 18.4
Ottawa-Gatineau
Ontario part 21.1
Quebec part 6.6
Toronto 43.7
Kingston 12.4
Oshawa 15.7
Kitchener 22.7
Hamilton 17.8
Edmonton 17.8
Calgary 20.9
regina 7.8
See the difference?
Thanks for that explanation, Gabby. What you say makes sense to me. Well, except for the Celine Dion part 😉
And ET, I agree with your itemization of some of the key problems involved.
There are those issued to be juggled. We have discussed many of them. They bring us back to the topic: “LGF takes on Stephen Harper”. As juggling goes, has Mr. Harper dropped the pins? No.
Ergo: Harper 1, LGF 0
And I’m unanimous in that, as Mrs. Slocum used to say on Are You Being Served?
Divided loyalties
Sociology prof warns multiculturalism ‘creates nations within a nation’
By Licia Corbella — Calgary Sun – June 18, 2006
Dr. Mahfooz Kanwar recently attended Calgary’s largest mosque for a funeral.
At one point in the proceedings, a man Kanwar has known for more than three decades led the prayers.
“He was saying in Urdu (the official language of Pakistan): ‘Oh, God, protect us from the infidels, who pollute us with their vile ways,'” recalls Kanwar, a professor of sociology at Mount Royal College in Calgary.
“I stood up and grabbed him by the lapels, which was shocking even to me because I have never done anything like that in my life and I said: ‘How dare you attack my country.’ And then I addressed the crowd and said: ‘I have known this man for more than 30 years and he has been on welfare for almost all of those years.’ ”
Kanwar chuckles at the memory.
“Then I said to this semi-literate man, ‘you should thank me and those you call infidels.’
“He asked me why and I said: ‘Because the taxes I pay are putting food on your table as are the taxes of the so-called “infidels.’ ”
Most Canadians and many Muslims would applaud Dr. Kanwar’s righteous outburst. But guess which of the two men is no longer welcome at the Sarcee Tr. S.W. mosque?
Not the intolerant, hate-spewing semi-literate. No, it’s Dr. Kanwar who’s persona non grata.
That, says Kanwar, is just one of numerous instances he has experienced as a result of the culture of ignorance and intolerance that permeates so many mosques in Canada and throughout the world. … voy forums
And your point is?
takes one goofball resentful pathetically misled ysm (yound single male) muslimist to undo the good from 1,000 desireables.
where does this fit in the immigration equation?
The error in your equation Robert is the value of your k-sub-undo. And I suspect your base measurement is probably slightly off too. But I take your point. Probably, the answer has to come from within the 999 (or equivalent), with our help. That was certainly Mr. Harper’s suggestion. I agree with it.