PDA

View Full Version : Multicultural Canada & The Loss of Canadian Identity



Rachel
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 03:46 AM
This is a picture from a downtown Toronto school in St. James Town. The photo is from the web page of a black Canadian Conservative, Megan Harris www.meganharris.ca

Toronto really is the worlds most diverse city in the world :shoot


http://www.meganharris.ca/photos/mh018.jpg

Telperion
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 04:01 AM
One of the reasons I am happy to have left the place. I no longer think of it as my home; it is alien territory.

Stew
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Yes it really is that bad. The whole of canada is going this direction. Toronto is the model for this countrys destruction. I pitty that little white girl in the picture. What hope is there for her future.

Milesian
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Yes it really is that bad. The whole of canada is going this direction. Toronto is the model for this countrys destruction. I pitty that little white girl in the picture. What hope is there for her future.

That is a very sad site. I actually almost missed the little white girl.
I hope she gets Affirmative Action due to being an ethnic minority.

That picture is like some twisted "Where's Waldo?" puzzles

Telperion
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 05:38 PM
The only 'good' news is that in Canada, the alien tide is overwhelmingly confined to a few large cities like Toronto. The countryside is still almost entirely White, and likely to remain so, because immigrants do not want to live here.

Example: the rural township where I currently live has approximately 17,500 inhabitants, 9 of whom are non-White (according to the latest census), which equals 99.95% White to 0.05% non-White. That is in a township a hundred miles or so from Toronto. Go to much more isolated areas (and there are a LOT of these, obviously - most of the country is a wilderness), and the are basically no immigrants whatsoever. The only non-Whites in those areas are the native Amerinds (and obviously they were there before the current crop of European settlers.)

Stew
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 12:59 AM
There is NO good news for Canada.

With an Uber Socialist far left government, a ministry of multiculturalism(!!!), and immigration minister who is a minority. Not to mention the falicy that Canada is "dangerously underpopulated" (and needs more quick breeding Asians).

This country takes in more unskilled non white immigrants as "family class immigrants" than any other white nation in the world and has more non white immigrants per capita than any other white nation. Twice that of the United States. (Source: CFIR 2003 meeting)

It may apear at the moment that Toronto Montreal and Vancouver are the only citys effected, but it its just a mater of time before we all start seeing it in our neighborhoods. I live in a small city of only 35,000 and the racial dynmaic is obviously shifted. I'd never seen a black here until a few years ago, and i'm amazed how many mixed race kids I see on a daily basis.

With Canadians general apathy to the subject, and all things political for that mater, and hate crime teams across the county to make sure no one speaks out we are truly doomed.

Telperion
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 05:31 AM
Things might be marginally less bad if the Liberals could be forced out of power federally. Those bastards are the ones chiefly responsible for the destruction of this country, beginning with that closet-Communist Trudeau. Whenever I see someone who has a Liberal campaign sign on their front lawn, I feel like smacking them and asking them what the hell their problem is.

Rachel
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 05:58 AM
What Canadians have to say about immigration http://www.canadafirst.net/immigration.html


TORONTO: THE COLOUR OF CRIME IS BLACK!


Dear Immigration Reformer:

The following Toronto police statistics are absolutely damning and well
worth remembering the next time THE TORONTO STAR or Ontario's homosexual
Ontario Human Rights Commissioner Keith Norton set up a howl about "racial
profiling" of blacks.

I have highlighted descriptions where given. They're from the most recent
(complete) Toronto Police Major News Reports (Dec 23)

By my reckoning -- Christmastide shootings aside -- in crimes involving 28
perpetrators (in which a description was forthcoming) the "score" stands at:

one white male
27 black males

Thus, in these crime incidents, the alleged perpetrator was black in a
staggering 96.3 per cent of cases. Yet, Blacks comprise just over 5 per
cent of the population of the City of Toronto.

Granted these are not comprehensive statistics of ALL crimes for the year,
but they certainly point to a pattern. A stroll through the criminal courts
reveals black defendants wildly out of proportion to their numbers in the
general population. Thus, can police be blamed for keeping a sharp eye on
young black males. Of course, not all are violent criminals, but clearly a
significant proportion are, more so, say, than Scottish pensioners or old
Italian grandmothers.

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE

Rachel
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 06:00 AM
Informative read about Canada's failed immigration policies


The Economics of Immigration

by John of Vancouver
January 16, 2004

Immigration of the sort we have in Canada is demonstrably bad for us,
economically and physically. Like being hit on the head by a porcupine
tossed from a tall tree. The number of shootings, stabbings and beatings
around Vancouver and Toronto suggest that, despite their still relatively
small proportions, third-world immigrants are disproportionately involved in
lawlessness. Shootings around Toronto have almost nothing to do with
Canadians and everything to do with blacks living up to their reputation. I
don't for one minute believe that Canada's billion dollar gun registry can
do anything at all to stop it since it's a near certainty that none of these
enriching immigrants is bothering to tell the government about their Glock
9mm in the glove compartment of the pimp-mobile, that is if they're employed at all. In Vancouver we have increasing levels of violence amongst what compliant liberal boobs call "people of colour" though the only colour visible is brown. Last week it was the Ornamentals and East-Indians outside a night club in Vancouver who shot an innocent white girl in the forehead when she naively tried to intercede between them.

The week before it was a raid on our provincial legislature no less, as
police searched for evidence of drug smuggling among the offices of
legislative assistants which list read like a New Delhi phone book. Two
weeks before that East Indian teens beat to death a Filipino named Mao and a week before that two East Indians were found with another one expired in their trunk. Last nights news reported that a Sikh terrorist was found hiding amongst his countrymen in the town of Osoyoos on the lam from Indian justice for murder. The very next item was about the RCMP investigating a trucking company in Delta, a suburb of Vancouver, for hauling drugs, sea-to-sea as it were. The company headquarters had a poster on the front door advertising a Bollywood film. No one is surprised.

It sounds an awful lot like East Indians are taking to heart the liberal's
idea of multiculturalism because that is how things transpire back on the
sub-continent if one is to believe the newspapers.

Still, the chances of being bonked with a bamboo pole or chopped with a
machete pales in comparison to the damage done to our economy by high levels of third-world immigration. Canada has a higher per capita rate of
immigration than the US, the vast majority from developing nations, the
affect of which is to suppress the wages of Canadians.

The reasons are simple.

One: supply and demand. More people (supply) willing to clean floors and serve hamburgers means the employer (demand) can pick and choose from many employees who bid down the price of labour amongst each other. Wage suppression through foreign economic immigration pressures.


Two: Immigrant workers can and will bid for contracts that they know will
only allow for below livable wages. This naturally undermines the expectations of Canadians who depend upon an income they can support a family on. Canadian contractors are bidding from the perspective of the domestic price/wage structure and as such are at a disadvantage when competing with contractors hiring wholly from the third-world immigrant
community.

It works like this. The Vancouver Sun reported yesterday that just one East-Indian household in Vancouver was inhabited by seventeen adults who just also happen to appear on a list of Federal Liberal Party supporters. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Seventeen fakirs paying one mortgage, one hydro bill, one property tax. Well that's no miracle, like pulling a cobra out of a basket, and this only counts the adults in the home, not the herd of children that always accompany such a domicile. Economies of scale folks. Even if each one of these adults brought home a meagre thousand dollars a month gross, seventeen of them combined make for a very nice single household income indeed. Of course you have to live in squalor to achieve it, but for someone accustomed to sharing a room with a water-buffalo, it seems a veritable bonanza!

It is no wonder that ALL the people who mop the floors at Vancouver
International Airport and most big city airports are East Indians. They work for independent contractors who bid against Canadians for the business.

Naturally white liberal politicians love to insult Canadians by telling us that these are only jobs we won't take. The politicians are merely doing what politicians do best, lying. To believe them you'd have to convince yourself that small town Canadians are living up to their eyeballs in trash and disorder.

Fact is, many of the third-world immigrants do a lousy job as janitors and
store clerks. Their own homelands reflect this. At my wife's office in a
prestigious downtown Vancouver high-rise they found the East-Indian janitors in the habit of dipping their mops into the toilet to wet them before wiping down the floors and then using the same mop to wash the marble floor of their showroom. This only stopped when they complained and the janitors were told only to use clean domestic tap water. The point is that they had to be told at all. All along Scott Road in the heart of East-Indian Surrey the
signage is drab and peeling. The store fronts, even for law offices, are
dingy with scant lighting and look of neglect one associates with
third-world villages, not modern Canadian cities. Africa is poor, goes the
saying, because Africans live there. The same is true of any country. It
reflects the lifestyle and inclinations of the dominant culture. Does anyone
believe that India is poor because of palm trees and tigers? That Vietnam
suffers under an conomic burden of coconuts and cockroaches?

A friend of mine is leaving Canada to take a job in Hong Kong flying 747's. To get this job he was required to attend two interviews. He is part of the well documented brain-drain of Canadians who are finding that they lack opportunity here and are forced to take jobs out of country in order to advance in their field. But that's OK because, as our last Liberal Prime Minister said, let them leave - we can replace them. And that is exactly what our immigration policy is doing.

My friend is still incredulous that he is leaving Canada to go and work in a Communist country where there is more opportunity and the taxes are lower (capped at 15%)! Thank you Liberal party of Canada. Thank you Prime Minister Paul Martin, whose fleet of ships is registered in a foreign country so as to avoid paying Canadian wages and Canadian taxes. Absolutely typical!

Coincidentally, this friend's wife has just applied for a job at the new Milestones restaurant in Richmond. She had to attend three interviews and memorize a two inch thick binder of company operating procedures. All this for a job that pays $8.00 an hour. No, this is not a misprint. I mean eight bucks an hour! Plus she has to write an exam and score not less than 80% before she's allowed to put a plate of fried potatoes before you. Oh, how about tips? Well, yes there is that, but does that mean that Milestones can demand such a pound of flesh before they allow you to work for near Dickensian wages? Yes, because to add insult to injury, on opening night she will work for her hourly stipend only, no tips, because management told her she was on probation.

In Canada, employers can do this because there is a mass of low-skilled
third-world immigrants (up to 250,000 including illegal refugees) flooding
into this country every year. Again, wage suppression through foreign
immigration pressures.

Canadians would be very pleased to work at restaurants like Milestones and to mop floors at airports - for a living wage. Mass immigration undercuts them, but benefits - a) employers who can pay less and increase company profits, b) unions who can collect fees from even low wage employees and c) governments who build grateful ethnic voting blocks.

I should mention that there was a line-up and stiff competition for those jobs at the new Milestones in Richmond.

Supply and demand is a simple fact of free-market economics but has been perverted by grasping politicians with one eye on the tax-payer's wallet and another on the ballot box.

Stew
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 06:35 AM
Things might be marginally less bad if the Liberals could be forced out of power federally. Those bastards are the ones chiefly responsible for the destruction of this country, beginning with that closet-Communist Trudeau. Whenever I see someone who has a Liberal campaign sign on their front lawn, I feel like smacking them and asking them what the hell their problem is.

Well said on the Trudeau thing. They put his portrate on teh side of a building here, paid for by the city, its about 30' tall. I'm doing my best to stop myself from painting it white (or red?) in the middle of the night.

The NDP would be far far worse on the immigration issue, and ths country will take a real nose dive of those commie bastards get it. Our conservatives are a friggen joke as well. They are probably just slightly right of the american democrats but still well left of center. They dont take a form issue on ANY real conservative issues. Its all a joke and voting sure as heck wont get us out of this situation.

Telperion
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 04:08 PM
Canadians would be very pleased to work at restaurants like Milestones and to mop floors at airports - for a living wage. Mass immigration undercuts them, but benefits - a) employers who can pay less and increase company profits, b) unions who can collect fees from even low wage employees and c) governments who build grateful ethnic voting blocks.

I should mention that there was a line-up and stiff competition for those jobs at the new Milestones in Richmond.

Supply and demand is a simple fact of free-market economics but has been perverted by grasping politicians with one eye on the tax-payer's wallet and another on the ballot box.What is remarkable is that a very substantial number, and I daresay a majority of White Canadians, do not support mass immigration. The 'mainstream' view amongst ordinary White people in this country seems to be that they would support immigration of people (whether White or non-White) who have specific skills that the country needs, e.g. in technology, but they do not think that mass immigration is to our benefit. And of course, they are right.

The government always touts up the supposed economic benefits of immigration (as if that's the only criteria by which the policy should be assessed), and yet even these economic arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
One has to ask, economic benefits to who? Look at it this way:

- The non-White immigrants brought to this country, even if they have professional qualifications in their own country, learn (often to their surprise) that their qualifications are useless here. They are forced to compete for the lowest-paying jobs.

- The poorer White Canadians now find their competition for these jobs greatly intensified, in a race to the bottom.

- Large corporations (who dominate the media, and the range of views presented in it) benefit from the resulting lower labour costs.

- Unions (as the article points out) have a new crop of potential members from whom they can collect dues

- Immigrants still vote for the party that brought them here (historically they vote for the Liberal party)

- Property-owners in the major cities are forced to pay out of their own pockets for education, police, and other social services related to the 'needs' of the new immigrants - none of these costs appear on the federal government's books, when it touts the 'benefits' of immigration.

So the bottom line is that even from the standpoint of someone who is not a racialist, this country's immigration policy makes NO sense from a general economic welfare standpoint. It only benefits the large corporations, unions, and the Liberal government - but that, of course, is why it continues full speed ahead. And the policy will continue even if the Liberals are forced out of power - because the NDP is just a more leftish version of the Liberals, beholden to the labour unions, while the Conservatives are beholden to the large corporatations who have determined that mass immigration is to their economic benefit. None of these parties will address public concerns about the issue in a serious way.

Telperion
Thursday, May 27th, 2004, 04:11 PM
I'm doing my best to stop myself from painting it white (or red?) in the middle of the night.
Trudeau's portrait should definitely be painted RED.


Its all a joke and voting sure as heck wont get us out of this situation.
Unfortunately, that is true.

Enlil
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 05:13 PM
In Sweden you sometimes hear claims like "look at Canada, they have a huge immigration and it works!" etc.

Apart from obvious reasons I know about which would make immigration less troublesome in Canada, like geography -- you don't have people coming by land (right?) en masse, it's easier to control airports. Also, I've understood that you have a more work related immigration, people can enter if they have a good education or a job in Canada. Is this correct?

So, Canadians and others, enlighten me about how Canada's multicultural & immigration policies work and how they affect the country, apart from obvious stuff like miscegenation.

Æmeric
Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 06:03 PM
Many of the immigrants entering Canada have been white collar proffessionals, but that doesn't mean they haven't displaced the native British & French Canadians. About half the people in the Greater Toronto Area are "visible minorities". There is a large non-White underclass (imported) in Canada. I don't think Canada's immigration policy has been a success, though that is what the multicultural elites who run Canada would like you to believe. It's a subject that can be tricky to discuss because of Canada's hate speach laws.

Why don't you visit this site to get an opposing Canadian view an Canada's successful immigration policy:http://www.canadafirst.net/

Patrioten
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 09:31 PM
I find it hard to believe that Canada would be a multi racial heaven. Sweden is probably promoted abroad as the perfect example of multi cultural utopia, even though many Swedes would have a different opinion on the matter. The establishment in Sweden for example don't think the immigration causes much trouble here, if there are any problems they are caused by discrimination and racism and not the immigration itself. As far as i'm concerned, there is no such thing as a harmonic, peaceful multi racial society.

Kurtz
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 09:42 PM
I'll speak from what I know. Immigration in Canada is, on a large scale, much more quiet and calm than it is in Europe, or at least than it appears to be. Here are few thoughts.

- As Madoc pointed out, we accept many immigrants which are already professionally educated, or which hold one or many diplomas. It helps to keep these people busy with working, even if we have problems with recognizing foreign education

- It is almost impossible to illegally immigrate into Canada (in stark contrast with Spain or Portugal for example), and our American neighbors are never kidding with suspect people. On a whole, we pretty much control who enters the country, and our government ejects illegal immigrants or refugees on a regular basis

- In Montréal, for examples, the greatest ethnic communities are, among others, Greeks, Ukrainians, Lebanese, Chinese and various Arab tribes. Asiatics are, pretty much everywhere, very quiet regardless to the size of their community. Arabs, however, if in great numbers, are famous trouble-makers, as in Europe. However, in Canada, there is no huge homogeneous Middle-Estearn community, they are split up in numerous places and surrounded by other communities. Arabs have no monopoly over crime or territory, even if they do cause problems in some neighborhoods in the greater cities

- There is, especially in Montréal, an important Haitian community which is crumbling under crime and poverty. The fact is that we simply rarely hear about them. We ignore the problem to not have to face it. Street gangs in Montréal and Toronto are almost 100% black, there were in areas surrounding Mtl waves of house invasions by many blacks, and more crimes only caused by Africans. But as in Europe they are simply citizens, or men, or middle-ages men wearing a certain kind of clothes.

- I would add, even if this is less true now, that a few years ago, the crime business was runned by Hells Angels, a gang of white bikers. Now that the police had almost destroyed these gangs, blacks are taking over. Immigrants who came here could hardly go in the crime business without having troubles with the Hells, so it may be another cause of the lesser problems of Canada's immigrants.

Here is a broad (and PC) overview of canadian multiculturalism:
http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/multi/index.htm#attitudes

Ovid
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Yup, immigration surely does not cause problems there:


Canadian town to immigrants: you can't stone women
By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Immigrants to the small Quebec town of Herouxville must not stone women in public, burn them alive or throw acid on them, according to an extraordinary set of rules made public by the local council.

The declaration, published on the town's Web site, has deepened a debate in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian province over how tolerant Quebecers should be towards the customs and traditions of immigrants.

"We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here," said the declaration, which also says women are allowed to drive, vote, dance, write checks, dress how they want, work and own property.

"Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to ... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."

No one on the town council was immediately available for comment on Tuesday. Herouxville, which has 1,300 inhabitants, is about 100 miles (160 km) northeast of Montreal.

Andre Drouin, the councillor who came up with the idea of the declaration, told the National Post newspaper that the town was not racist.

"We invite people from all nationalities, all languages, all sexual orientations, whatever, to come live with us, but we want them to know ahead of time how we live," he said.

The regulations say girls and boys can exercise together and people should only be allowed to cover their faces at Halloween. Children must not take weapons to school, although the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Sikh boys have the right to carry ceremonial daggers.

The Herouxville declaration is part of a wider discussion over "reasonable accommodation", or how far Quebecers should be prepared to change their customs so as not to offend immigrants -- figures from the 2001 census show that around 10 percent of Quebec's 7.5-million population were born outside Canada.

Last year a Montreal gym agreed to install frosted windows after a nearby Hassidic synagogue said it was offended by the sight of adults exercising.

Newspapers say a Montreal community centre banned men from prenatal classes to respect Hindu and Sikh traditions and an internal police magazine suggested women police officers allow their male colleagues to interview Hassidic Jews.

Earlier this month the Journal de Montreal published a poll showing that 59 percent of those surveyed admitted to harbouring some kind of racist feelings.

Montreal's police force is investigating one of its officers after it emerged that he had posted an anti-immigrant song on the Internet.

Some teachers have complained that Jewish and Muslim colleagues get extra paid time off for religious holidays.

The Herouxville declaration is available, in English and in French, at the "avis public" section of the town's Web site, http://municipalite.herouxville.qc.ca.

Source (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2007-01-30T174329Z_01_N30302451_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-STONING.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1)

EDIT: The first part was missing.

Oblomov
Monday, March 12th, 2007, 10:00 PM
I find it hard to believe that Canada would be a multi racial heaven. Sweden is probably promoted abroad as the perfect example of multi cultural utopia, even though many Swedes would have a different opinion on the matter. The establishment in Sweden for example don't think the immigration causes much trouble here, if there are any problems they are caused by discrimination and racism and not the immigration itself. As far as i'm concerned, there is no such thing as a harmonic, peaceful multi racial society.
So was Holland...

We were the poster boy for tolerance.

That is, until the dikes that were holding back the flood of anger and discontentment about immigration broke back in 2002.

Multiculturalism and multiracialism do not work and will never work.

Not in any country, including Canada.

Peter
Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 08:55 PM
Of course they don´t work, but we are suffering this horrible propaganda, day to day.

Banjo
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Huge differences are among others that in Sweden you can bring with your relatives without taking any responsibilty for these. Often they are not in condition to work because of age, trauma etc. so government most often pay for their livings. I read that in Canada the immigrant, must see after for his relatives and pay for their living.

In Sweden, Swedish is not even official language and in some towns you can survive with just knowing arabic. If you do not know swedish you do not get any job. It can't be easy to learn proper swedish while you live in an area where you survive by knowing arabic only. To get a citizenship there are no obligations to make tests in language, history etc.

Sweden was until after World War II very ethnical homogenous. Todays massive immigration resulting in chaotic ghettos, bad results in schools in these ghettos, unemployness, shortage of housing etc. can't get along well with the swedish mentality which was formed during the agricultural era. It should have been a shock for the elderly people, but it seems like they keep voting at the same politicians just because they are used to that they made their life better compared with what their fathers had. I think that in Canada you respect your traditions, culture and society more and do not take your nation for granted that swedish politicians seem to do. Canada was colonized relatively late compared with Sweden that has been a nation for at least 800 years so immigration there should be something not as complex.

Eg. when I was a kid I remember when we sung psalms in school before christmas. Some muslims did not want to. Fine. But now this explosive immigration has made that one of our biggest tradition, to celebrate breaking-up-day from school, in the church, no longer exist.

In some districts of Stockholm there are schools where all the pupils are free from school during Islamic holidays.

In Sweden there is a saying that you shall use the customs in the place you are, or something like that. I do not think that that saying exist for real anymore. At least not among our politicians.

I am fed up with this harassment of swedish culture. I am worried about how Sweden or more like parts of Sweden will look in 10-20 years. Alot people say that "We don't care about these problems for ourself but for our future generations". When people talk reality in Sweden, you are a racist.

Freydis
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Yup, immigration surely does not cause problems there:
Source (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2007-01-30T174329Z_01_N30302451_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-STONING.XML&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1)

EDIT: The first part was missing.

The Québecois are more nationalistic than the other Canadians. And secondly, Herouxville doesn't care about immigrants, so long as they conform to societal norms there... so if 300 Africans moved there, it wouldn't matter to them, so long as they followed the norms...

Being the first Canadian to reply (that I can see from the flags), immigration isn't really a huge issue here, from the news and media perspective at least. To me, there are still more "white" (though I only use that as an aesthetic term rather than racial term) people than not, but that could easily change. It is easy to immigrate here and get citizenship and be accepted into society. In fact, a schoolmate of mine only recently got citizenship and we all treated him like he was Canadian. It's the mentality.

We ignore the fact that people are immigrants. That's the bottom line.

It is mostly because Canada (but not Québec, for the most part), in my opinion, lacks a clear cultural identity of its own, so it must assimilate many ideas into its "culture".

Most of the gangs you hear about on the news here are biker gangs of mostly large "white men.

The black gangs are all in the big cities. Look up Jane and Finch in Toronto..

Æmeric
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 03:21 AM
I thought Kurtz was Canadian?

http://www.learn-french-in-france.info/learn-french-in-quebec-flag.gif

Freydis
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 03:24 AM
No, I regard Québec as separate when talking about Canadian culture. :P

But if they want to be separate, they can't be so demanding.. :D

Kurtz
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Secession issue aside (which no more than 40% approve nowadays), Québec faces the same situations and problems with immigration than does the rest of Canada. I wouldn't consider Québec and Canada as firmly distinct when talking about this particular topic.

Erhard
Friday, August 3rd, 2007, 07:53 PM
Our ongoing challenge

In spite of these domestic and international efforts, public opinion research suggests that racism remains a serious problem. This troubling reality was confirmed in a 2003 Ipsos-Reid survey commissioned by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada and the Globe and Mail. In it, 74 percent of respondents expressed the view that there is still considerable racism in Canada. Other research, including the Ethnic Diversity Survey and Statistics Canada census data, identifies a variety of concerns:
36 percent of visible minorities feel they have experienced discrimination and unfair treatment because of ethno-cultural characteristics;
nearly 50 percent of Blacks reported discrimination or unfair treatment. By contrast, 33 percent of South Asian and Chinese respondents reported discrimination or unfair treatment;
when broken down by gender, there is a slight increase in reports of discrimination by Black men (53% compared to 47% for women). There is a similar increase reported by South Asian men (38% compared to 27% for women);
according to a 2003 Ekos survey, 46 percent of Aboriginal people living off-reserve reported being a victim of racism or discrimination at least once over the previous two years;
research by Ipsos-Reid (2002) suggested that more than six-out-of-ten Canadians (61%) think that racism separates Aboriginal peoples from the rest of society; and
roughly the same proportion (59%) felt that Aboriginal peoples are discriminated against by other Canadians.Canada's changing society

Today, nearly half of Canada’s citizens (47%) are of an ethnic origin other than British, French or native-born Canadian.
More than 94 percent of visible minorities live within Canada’s metropolitan areas.
In Vancouver and Toronto, more than a third of the population is a visible minority. It is projected that by 2016, this figure will increase to more than half.
Canada’s 2001 Census indicates that 20 percent of immigrants living in Canada’s metropolitan areas are considered low-income families. This compares unfavourably to the 12 percent of non-immigrants living within the same geographic boundaries.
In 2001, Statistics Canada reported that one-in-five school children in Toronto and Vancouver was a new immigrant.
The same report noted that for almost half of all children in Toronto, and 61 percent in Vancouver, the language spoken most often at home was neither English nor French.More (http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/multi/plan_action_plan/tous_all/index_e.cfm)


Can this change still be reversed or is Canada a lost cause?

Æmeric
Friday, August 3rd, 2007, 10:19 PM
I think Canada is a lost cause. The Europid population in Canada is divided between Anglophones & Francophones, the latter mainly in Quebec. There was a referendum on independence in Quebec in 1995 in which the independence option lost by 1%. Had it not been for the non-White immigrant vote Quebec would be an independent nation today. If Quebec was independent then that would bring into question the relationship of the Atlantic provinces with the federal government in Ottawa - an independent Quebec would cut off those provinces from the rest of Canada. So an immigrant population loyal to the federal government in Canada has helped keep Canada united for the time being but at the expense of becoming a multicultural cesspool. I think the best you could hope for is the non-Whites - mainly east & south Asians - are repatriated & the individual provinces go their own way - independence, becoming a British protectorate, joining the US. With current conditions in the UK & US, independence may be the best option.

Kurtz
Friday, August 3rd, 2007, 10:45 PM
Can this change still be reversed or is Canada a lost cause?

Canada's largest cities, indeed, are lost since at least 20 or 25 years old. However, a significant part of Euro-Canadians live in middle- to small cities, or countryside, and these places often remain very pleasant to live in. I live in Québec city, for example, since more than 10 years and this town (400,000) is at least 95% European, mostly French with some English and Eastern Euros. Immigrants often have no clear advantage in coming to smaller cities, when all their relatives and countrymen are agglomerated in metropoles and most cheap jobs are to be found there. Despite this, some foreigners to come to places such as where I live (there is a dense Arab street not far from here, and negroes are not rare in the downtown and low-class neighborhoods).

What I wish, without being too hopeful, is that more and more Euro-Canadians move to smaller cities, or at least to overwhelmingly Euro suburbs (White flight), in order to preserve their quality of life and peaceful/quiet living areas. And this is happening as we speak.

Ægir
Monday, August 6th, 2007, 12:34 AM
Canada's largest cities, indeed, are lost since at least 20 or 25 years old. However, a significant part of Euro-Canadians live in middle- to small cities, or countryside, and these places often remain very pleasant to live in. I live in Québec city, for example, since more than 10 years and this town (400,000) is at least 95% European, mostly French with some English and Eastern Euros. Immigrants often have no clear advantage in coming to smaller cities, when all their relatives and countrymen are agglomerated in metropoles and most cheap jobs are to be found there. Despite this, some foreigners to come to places such as where I live (there is a dense Arab street not far from here, and negroes are not rare in the downtown and low-class neighborhoods).

What I wish, without being too hopeful, is that more and more Euro-Canadians move to smaller cities, or at least to overwhelmingly Euro suburbs (White flight), in order to preserve their quality of life and peaceful/quiet living areas. And this is happening as we speak.

That seems to be a common them with these immigrant groups that they all flock to the large cities. They do not feel comfortable in small cities or in the country side where our Folk are still strong so to speak. I do not think that Canada is a lost cause any more than America or any European nation. I think that large cities are the lost cause and one of the largest problems with Germanic civilization as a whole.

Huzar
Tuesday, August 7th, 2007, 08:22 AM
Official canadian census says : 85% caucasian - 15 % non-caucasian


Obviusly in the 85% of caucasians, are included arabs andsimilar. Besides this is a general statistic. Non-Europeans are much more than 15% in big cities (30/40%)

Æmeric
Tuesday, August 7th, 2007, 02:31 PM
In the US, Arabs are counted as White but in Canada they are included in what is called "visible minorities". 85% is the Euro-Canadian population. BUt you could be under the impression it was much lower if you ever visited Vancouver or Toronto.:mad:

Huzar
Tuesday, August 7th, 2007, 02:42 PM
In the US, Arabs are counted as White but in Canada they are included in what is called "visible minorities". 85% is the Euro-Canadian population. BUt you could be under the impression it was much lower if you ever visited Vancouver or Toronto.:mad:



Hmmm.........some months ago i calculated % of white non-hispanic pop in various urban areas of U.S. (the biggest cities). As you can imagine, white proportion doesn't surpass 30/40% in many cases. We could say that typical average american metropolis is exactly 1/3 white, these days (and 2/3 non white).

Perhaps Canadian cities are in the same condition ? :(

Æmeric
Tuesday, August 7th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Yes, some of the US metro areas are less then 1/2 non-Hispanic White. But the suburbs are still self-segregated. In Canada most immigrants go to the Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal metro areas so at least the non-Europids are concentrated in a few areas in Canada. That use to be the way it was in the US but in the last 10-15 years Mexicans & other Central Americans have been settling in rural areas of the US that were predominately White & of British, German & Scandinavian descent. Many of these area hadn't had an influx of migrants in over a 100 years.

Loyalist
Thursday, August 30th, 2007, 05:09 PM
As of this moment, 43% of the population of Toronto are visible minorities. The same source indicated it will be a white minority city by 2012. A walk through downtown Toronto certainly reflects this. The suburbs are now largely no-go areas, due to the staggaring amount of crime committed almost exclusively by non-whites. Vancouver is experiencing similar decay. I concur that Canada is, unfortunately, a lost cause. Liberal, socialist attitudes are too prevelant amongst the white populace to allow anything to be done about this steady decline. Canada's draconian hate crimes laws make it impossible for such an effort to even gain momentum. This nation, once a gleaming example of the abilities of European civilization, is on the way out.

stormlord
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 10:49 AM
Big cities are certainly a problem, but it seems like the real problem is that young people from outside the cities, especially the most ambitious ones, will flock to them. The "brain drain" has occurred in countries like England for centuries, but it used to be white countryside>white cities, now it's white countryside>non white cities. The end result will be that the best people will be the ones that end up being subsumed into the brown mess that all western cities are becoming.

SineNomine
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 02:47 PM
Today, nearly half of Canada’s citizens (47%) are of an ethnic origin other than British, French or native-born Canadian.
What does it mean by this? Does it mean other European origins (e.g. Scandinavian, Italian etc.) or non-Europeans? How ethnically pure is Quebec? I would like for it to secede from the rest of Canada.

Janus
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 04:58 PM
What does it mean by this? Does it mean other European origins (e.g. Scandinavian, Italian etc.) or non-Europeans? How ethnically pure is Quebec? I would like for it to secede from the rest of Canada.

Actually, most of these foreigners are from Europe since Canada is a very popular emigration country since it kind of stands for the positive North American values but without the resentiments against the USA here. Eventually I think Canada is still better off than a lot of European countries although you have with about 15-20% non European people or partly non European people the same number of aliens. You have it better because your aliens are mostly Asians and although they might be unwelcomed by you they are usually less likely to commit crimes than blacks or Arabs and they are sticking to their own culture for many generations so it will still be easy and not overly cruel to repatriate them then.

Besides that I actually do not care much about the racial make up of Canada since Europeans did the same there and I doubt most natives welcomed them ;)

Freydis
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 11:37 PM
The cities are very "mixed", and I wouldn't say that it is better off than Europe other than that there is more assimilation in Canada than I've observed in England.

@ SineNomine: It probably refers mostly to noneuropeans.

Æmeric
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 02:07 AM
In 2001, 13.4% of Canada's population was "visible minorities", persons of non-European origins. This would include persons such as Arabs or Persians who would be counted as White in the US. In addition, 3.4% of Canada's population was made up of First Nations peoples (indigenous Canadian Indians, though not all are fullblood). For some reason. Canadian Amerindians are not included in the "visible minoritiy" population count. That would leave 83.2% as European. I don't have the figures from the 2006 census.

Freydis
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 02:52 AM
Yes, the majority of this population would be "White". But this is concentrated in the rural areas mostly, and what is "white European" exactly? They could be from anywhere in Europe.

But if we look at the immigration statistics (from 2001 also), it is dire situation still:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo34a.htm

Immigration from noneuropean countries nearly meets immigration from european countries. Besides that this is also nongermanic countries included in the statistics.

If we observe this chart: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo24a.htm

We can see how the immigration from countries such as the UK and certain regions in Europe is declining from 1960ies onwards (yes some have gone up such as Eastern Europe in 1991-2001 but this can be explained by the refugees coming from this region). If we look at Asian and African countries, there is a rise, but no decline.

We will have to wait for this document: http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=97-557-X for more recent data, as well as this: http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=94-577-X

edit: I'm really sorry for my bad English, just I haven't slept in ages and have been speaking in French nearly all night.

Kurtz
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 05:18 AM
What does it mean by this? Does it mean other European origins (e.g. Scandinavian, Italian etc.) or non-Europeans? How ethnically pure is Quebec? I would like for it to secede from the rest of Canada.

Canadians are mostly of British and French descent. There is some significant Eastern European immigration, Italian heritage is also quite common, German & North Germanic migration being quite limited.

As for Québec, you have to distinguish between the English population (about 500,000 individuals at much, overwhelmingly living in Montréal's western parts), the French population (great majority, about 85% of the 7 millions), recently arrived Europeans of other origin (Slavs, Italians, etc) and non-White immigrants.

English "Québécois" are a mix bag of British Isles populations, similar as what is found in USA. French Canadians are mostly of northern France stock, quite old frankly (the bulk of ancestry, with the core of what are now the common surnames, came before 1750, and many before 1700, both of my surnames dating back to mid-1600s). There has been some admixture with Amerindians at the beginning of the colonies, resulting in a number of French Canadians having distant Amerind genetic heritage (1/32 and often less, since the inter-ethnic unions took place durant the 17th century mostly). I never found a precise statistic about this admixture, but I have no reason whatsoever to think that more than about 30% of French Canadians have Amerindian blood. It is phenotypically impossible to notice in most cases, and as it is the case with many American WASPs, unions with natives are often legends rather than historical facts. More recently, as a result of Irish famine, many Irishmen came here during the 19th century and integrated well (because of Catholicism) in the French Canadian population. Maybe 30 or 40% of French Canadians have Irish blood (I do, 1/32 probably). It is probably the only major non-French genetics our people assimilated at a large scale (both in cities and rural areas, but back then we were largely an agricultural folk).

Other European immigrants are relatively new on this Continent, so they are ethnically unmixed for the vast majority of them. Non-white immigration is like everywhere else. Recent interracial couples are not a rare sight in Montréal, but seldom found elsewhere.

(Sorry for this post, it is off-topic for the most part, but I hope you still do appreciate its informative nature)

Dagna
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 01:40 AM
Canada's immigration hit new heights

OTTAWA — The population of Canada grew more in the past three months than it has in any third quarter since 1990, according to Statistics Canada.

The population hit 33,441,300, up 129,900 since July.

Every province and territory saw rising numbers, except the Northwest Territories, which saw a decline of 132 residents.

Most of the growth was recorded in Western Canada, with Alberta continuing to report the highest numbers. New Canadians and people who moved to Alberta from other provinces numbered 25,640 in the third quarter of 2008, likely due to the continuing job opportunities offered in that province, Statistics Canada said.

"Usually, people go where there are jobs, so that explains the strong tendency toward Alberta," said Hubert Denis, senior analyst for Statistics Canada.

The agency said growth across the country was due mostly to immigration. Between July 1 and Oct. 1, 2008, 71,300 people entered Canada. Numbers have increased everywhere since provinces began stepping up their efforts to attract people internationally.

"Provinces are being more aggressive and it really shows in the numbers," said Denis.

Prince Edward Island, for instance, has registered a drastic increase since it began participating in the Provincial Nominee Program, which makes it easier for people from other nations to come to Canada. In the third quarter alone, P.E.I. set records in immigration, welcoming 611 people. Its previous high was 420.

"For a small province like P.E.I., this represents a very big increase," said Denis.

All across Canada, similar programs have boosted immigration numbers significantly.

Manitoba, the first province to introduce the program, saw spikes in immigration almost immediately.

In 2001, the province attracted an average of 1,148 new Canadians every quarter; in 2005 it was 2,024 and the last quarter saw 2,588 people moving in from abroad.

In 1998, when it introduced the program, Manitoba was looking at shortages of skilled labour in every sector, said Ben Rempel, the assistant deputy minister for Manitoba Labour and Immigration.

"Without this program, the industry we have wouldn't have been able to grow as it has . . . we would have been looking at economic stagnation," said Rempel.

"The key to attracting immigrants to Canada is understanding how they can contribute to the various distinct regional labour markets across the country."

He attributes Manitoba's 80 per cent retention rate to its strong and diverse economy, affordable living and family-friendly communities.

Rempel added that it's important for new Canadians to know what they're coming to, and to have support once they get here. "We work early on in the arrival period to give them the tools they need to be successful in the labour market."

Statistics Canada has noticed that these programs are having a major affect of immigration patterns — newcomers are starting to be lured away from what Rempel calls "MTV" — Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

"Immigrants used to head mainly to Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and they're still going there, but they're also spreading out across the country in unprecedented numbers," said Denis.

Total population (increase in third quarter):

Canada 33,441,277 (129,888)

Newfoundland and Labrador 508,944 (1,049)

Prince Edward Island 140,750 (932)

Nova Scotia 939,125 (815)

New Brunswick 747,790 (488)

Quebec 7,771,854 (21,350)

Ontario 12,977059 (48,063)

Manitoba 1,210547 (2,588)

Saskatchewan 1,020,847 (4,862)

Alberta 3,610,782 (25,640)

British Columbia 4,405,534 (23,931)

Yukon 33,372 (228)

Northwest Territories 43,151 (-132)

Nunavut 31,522 (44)

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/canada/Immigration+keeps+Canada+growing/1095633/story.html

Nachtengel
Sunday, April 5th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Issues don’t get much hotter than immigration. It’s where political correctness abounds, where allegations of intolerance and racism are but a breath away, where ministers had best show finesse with their pronouncements.

Not so Jason Kenney. Our man at the immigration turnstiles has been in a bull-in-a-china shop mode lately. He’s told newcomers they have to speak our official languages better, he’s barred British MP George Galloway from admittance, he’s accused refugees of systematic abuse of the system, he’s called for more integration of immigrants, and he’s gone to war with the Canadian Arab Federation, a group that accuses him of being a shill for the Jewish community.

It’s serious stuff. The purport is that immigrants must do more to conform to Canadian standards. The minister wants to tighten the definition of what it means to be Canadian. The pitch—when in Rome, do as the Romans do—is for less multiculturalism and more melting pot. “We want to avoid the kind of ethnic conclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European communities,” says Mr. Kenney. New Canadians have “a duty to integrate. . . . We don’t need the state to promote diversity.”

Monte Solberg, the previous Conservative immigration minister, favours the move to the melting pot, saying the Liberal concept of the multicultural mosaic is dated. Immigrant communities are more self-assured now. Ottawa, Mr. Solberg says, shouldn’t be in the business of preserving their cultures.

If the Conservatives press forward with this approach, it will be a big step for a government often criticized for having no vision. Multiculturalism has become one of our hallmarks. We have developed a reputation for tolerance. The Conservatives are saying that there’s too much tolerance, that there needs to be limits. Mr. Kenney, for example, has ended the heritage language program wherein Ottawa helped pay for children to learn their parents’ language.

The government, favouring a more selective immigration process, brought in legislation last year that allowed it to fast-track the types of immigrants it wants and freeze out those it doesn’t. Critics said it gave too much prerogative to the immigration minister. Many Liberals were pushing for increased immigration, saying an aging population and declining birth rate will reduce the population and, in turn, hinder economic growth.

In his book Unlikely Utopia, Michael Adams contests the need for melting-pot initiatives, saying it’s the absence of a strong Canadian identity that helps make this country free of prejudice and a place where immigrants can feel comfortable. Communities with a stronger, more confined sense of themselves are less tolerant. In parts of Quebec and Europe, multiculturalism is seen as a threat. In Canada, Mr. Adams notes, it’s a source of pride.

Mr. Kenney, one of the Harper government’s most talented performers, earned goodwill among many ethnic communities when he served as secretary of state for multiculturalism. He was a workhorse, going to every ethnic event imaginable, earning the moniker Curry in a Hurry. The empathy he offered had a strategic purpose: The goal was to end the Liberals’ domination of the immigrant vote, and results in the last election showed he made some headway.

But his more aggressive approach, an attempt by the government to reinvent multiculturalism, may be putting the gains at risk. The barring of Mr. Galloway brought on widespread condemnation. The move to ramp up language requirements for entrants has led to allegations of intolerance. The heavy tilt to the Jewish community has alienated Muslims. In the House of Commons, however, the Liberals have been lax in going after Mr. Kenney, hardly mentioning, for example, the Galloway controversy.

In that he is viewed as a potential leadership contestant, Mr. Kenney’s pugnacity on the immigrant file might be a bid to burnish his right-side credentials. But there is likely more to it than that. The Conservatives appear set on charting a new course on immigration.

While melting-pot measures may alienate pockets of the population, they speak to their core beliefs. They also speak well to many Canadians who feel that indulgence toward immigrants has been carried too far.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/03/enough_of_multi.php

Norman Pride
Wednesday, April 8th, 2009, 11:27 AM
I don't think we need more integration of immigrants. They shouldn't be here in the first place.

Aemma
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 02:29 PM
I don't think we need more integration of immigrants. They shouldn't be here in the first place.


Though I wholehartedly agree with your sentiment Norman Pride, I think that the article does well in pointing out the shift in attitude that our country is undergoing with respect to immigration policy. Labels of 'multicultural mosaic' and 'melting pot' aside, I think this article highlights that there has been a shift in federal thinking in terms of no longer pandering to the needs of the New Canadian but to the needs of Canada herself. For a newcomer to at least be able to confidently speak English (and French preferably, my own bias of course ;)) should be one of the very minimal standards for living here. As for all of these publicly-subsidized 'language schools' which abound in my neck of the woods anyway, why should the taxpayers foot this bill? To axe these is a step in the right direction imho.

It's a good article and shows the quandary in which Canada finds herself at present. We have to undo a certain amount of thinking which gives preference to minority New Canadians, thanks to our world-famous Multiculturalism Policy, and have to rejig it to suit Canada's needs as a whole--and I'm hoping in that too, to give a well-deserved nod to the founding cultures of this country over and above the more recent cultures found here.

In the end, I think that the melting pot concept is probably the lesser of two evils. And believe me I never in a million years thought I would ever say such a thing, having been one who has grown up during the Trudeau era. :) But New Canadians need to conform to our needs as a country and as Canadians and not the other way around. :)

Frith...Aemma

PS: Excellent article Todesengel :)

Freja_se
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:09 PM
But New Canadians need to conform to our needs as a country and as Canadians and not the other way around. :)


"New Canadians"? I would never ever refer to immigrants as "new Swedes". They are not Swedes, have no right to be here and to destroy my country and my race, and they have no right to live off of us here. We are even financing our own extinction since most of them live off of welfare and contribute almost nothing.

I will never ever call those people who help extinguish my people "Swedes". They are INVADERS and not one of us. Relatively peaceful ones, but invaders just the same. They have been allowed in here by my government but NOT by the Swedes themselves who were never asked in any referendum whether or not it is OK to slowly ethnically cleanse my country.

Aemma
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:14 PM
"New Canadians"? I would never ever refer to immigrants as "new Swedes". They are not Swedes, have no right to be here and to destroy my country and my race, and they have no right to live off of us here. We are even financing our own extinction since most of them live off of welfare and contribute almost nothing.

I will never ever call those people who help extinguish my people "Swedes". They are INVADERS and not one of us. Relatively peaceful ones, but invaders just the same. They have been allowed in here by my government but NOT by the Swedes themselves who were never asked in any referendum whether or not it is OK to slowly ethnically cleanse my country.

Oh relax. This is what we call them here. Ease up will you.

Freja_se
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:17 PM
Oh relax. This is what we call them here. Ease up will you.

"We"? Speak for yourself. I'm sure you don't speak for most people, especially not here.

Sigurd
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:36 PM
"We"? Speak for yourself. I'm sure you don't speak for most people, especially not here.

Canadians call their recent immigrants "New Canadians", regardless of what their political affiliations. In fact, from what I gather, the term is also increasingly often used tongue-in-cheek, much like a German would sarcastically refer to a foreigner as "one with migrational background". :shrug

For colony countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia or New Zealand, who became "ours" by colonalisation, immigration and conquest you can also not specify people as "immigrants" as everyone has an "immigrant background" as it were.

Instead, you can only specify which type of immigrants you would accept, and of which ethnic background they may be. Bear in mind that the ethnic make-up of most in the colonies is generally "Celto-Germanic" and that thus somewhat different standards than in 100% monoethnic nations as we have them here in Europe have to be applied.

I've always said that there is a reason why "White Nationalism" and "Pan-Europeanism" would never work in Europe. But vice-versa, strict ethnic nationalism by let's say German-Americans, Swedish-Americans, you name it, wouldn't work either for America or Canada.

Different part of the world, different solution and approach to the same problem needed. ;)

Aemma
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 05:36 PM
"We"? Speak for yourself. I'm sure you don't speak for most people, especially not here.

For the record I was firstly addressing a compatriot in that first post of mine and nobody else. Secondly, re-read my most recent post which indeed WAS addressed to you: "we" means Canadians, not you a Swede nor anyone else from any other country that is represented on this board.


Canadians call their recent immigrants "New Canadians", regardless of what their political affiliations. In fact, from what I gather, the term is also increasingly often used tongue-in-cheek, much like a German would sarcastically refer to a foreigner as "one with migrational background". :shrug

For colony countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia or New Zealand, who became "ours" by colonalisation, immigration and conquest you can also not specify people as "immigrants" as everyone has an "immigrant background" as it were.

Instead, you can only specify which type of immigrants you would accept, and of which ethnic background they may be. Bear in mind that the ethnic make-up of most in the colonies is generally "Celto-Germanic" and that thus somewhat different standards than in 100% monoethnic nations as we have them here in Europe have to be applied.

I've always said that there is a reason why "White Nationalism" and "Pan-Europeanism" would never work in Europe. But vice-versa, strict ethnic nationalism by let's say German-Americans, Swedish-Americans, you name it, wouldn't work either for America or Canada.

Different part of the world, different solution and approach to the same problem needed. ;)

Thank you Sigurd, you've hit the nail right on the head and have expressed the facts bang on when it comes to understanding the colonial countries. I'd even consider you an honorary Canuck based on this post, Siggy. ;)

Cheers and frith!...Aemma

Hauke Haien
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 06:03 PM
For colony countries such as Canada, the United States, Australia or New Zealand,
Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, England,


who became "ours" by colonalisation, immigration and conquest you can also not specify people as "immigrants" as everyone has an "immigrant background" as it were.
We can and we should do so. An ethnicity cannot stabilise by maintaining an inclusive attitude toward significant, continuous outside input.


I've always said that there is a reason why "White Nationalism" and "Pan-Europeanism" would never work in Europe. But vice-versa, strict ethnic nationalism by let's say German-Americans, Swedish-Americans, you name it, wouldn't work either for America or Canada.

Different part of the world, different solution and approach to the same problem needed. ;)
Conquered territories profit from a proper ethnogenesis, even if they are outside of Europe, and this is different from a self-colonising melting pot or the other option, going for broke and resorting to a shallow racial definition.

I am also curious how anyone would consider himself Germanic without an ethnic identity that is Germanic. Is this why the word "white" is so excessively popular in the section titled Germanic Lands: Around the World?

Freja_se
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 06:21 PM
I still think it is strange to talk about "new Canadians" for someone being here on this board. That runs contrary to everything this is about. To me, being a Swede is something truly special. It is not a title I give away freely and to whomever, you see.


Canadians call their recent immigrants "New Canadians", regardless of what their political affiliations.

That statement is absolutely incredible.

Aemma
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 06:41 PM
That statement is absolutely incredible.

What's your point?

It is what it is, what you think about this statement is quite immaterial and serves no purpose with respect to the OP's point of bringing up the issue of the Multicultural Mosaic (which has been the model in Canada thus far) versus The Melting Pot (which has been the model in the United States thus far). If you stick to the main issue without throwing in strawman arguments that have sufficiently derailed this thread already, this discussion might be a lot more interesting.

Do you have something constructive to add to the debate of the Multicultural Mosaic Model versus the Melting Pot Model by any chance?

Freja_se
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 06:50 PM
Do you have something constructive to add to the debate of the Multicultural Mosaic Model versus the Melting Pot Model by any chance?


Yeah, I do. I like the Mono Cultural Model better. The other ones are for those who resign, and that's not in the best interest of our survival. I don't intend to adopt immigrants, sorry. I want them out of my country, and that struggle is what is meaningful.

Rassenhygieniker
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 07:15 PM
I don't intend to adopt immigrants, sorry.

I think there is a misunderstanding there, no one is saying we should accept nonwhites as our kin. But rather they (the Canadians) were discussing how racially uncouncious (meaning, not the majority of the people in this forum) people view and name their nonwhite immigrants.



I want them out of my country, and that struggle is what is meaningful.

You might want them out, but before attemping to remove the ones who are already in Sweden, you must make sure to turn off the valve until more of them pour inside of your country.

Who do you think allowed all those nonwhites inside of your country in the first place?

Angantyr
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 08:05 PM
Oh relax. This is what we call them here. Ease up will you.

That is what the government officially calls them. However, I have a few choicewords that I call the government.

In the end, I do not call them new Canadians. I call a spade a spade, so to speak. However, I do not call myself a Canadian either. I am Quebecois after 15 generations. I merely have Canadian citizenship.

Aemma
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 08:14 PM
That is what the government officially calls them. However, I have a few choicewords that I call the government.

In the end, I do not call them new Canadians. I call a spade a spade, so to speak. However, I do not call myself a Canadian either. I am Quebecois after 15 generations. I merely have Canadian citizenship.

Fair enough. My own family is one of the original 300 pioneer families who settled on Ile d'Orleans. I am a proud fifth generation Franco-Ontarian as well however, and I do call myself Canadian and proudly at that. :) To each his or her own. I was just making a passing reference in terms of what immigrants are called here IN CANADA for ease of discussion. They are called New Canadians, whether we personally like or accept the term or not. I would think that being in the legal profession such PCism would not necessarily be foreign to you. :)

Norman Pride
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 08:16 PM
That is what the government officially calls them.
Indeed. "New Canadians" is a politically correct term to refer to immigrants and refugees.

"New Canadians" usually refers to non European immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. For example, a website about scholarships for New Canadians:
http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/scholarships/newcanadians/index.html

An article about New Canadians:
http://www.police.saskatoon.sk.ca/index.php?loc=diversity/new_canadians.php

Team: New Canadians:
http://www.cbc.ca/testthenation/episodes/canada/teams/newcanadians.html

You can judge by the picture they chose to represent the New Canadian population.

However, some ordinary people have other words they use for them. "Aliens" is one, and it is considered politically incorrect and offensive.

TheGreatest
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009, 05:45 AM
Biased Multiculturalism. There is no reason why we must bring in Chinese if we could bring in Eastern Europeans or more Mediterraneans. Hell there are Afrikaners (Boer) who have been denied immigration to Canada in lieu of a Chinese!

I see a lot of elderly Chinese and it pisses me off. A lot of elderly Afrikaner are refused entry because they might "drain the healthcare system". Yet, it seems like 1/10 of the immigrants I see are elderly Asians.

Resist
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009, 06:30 AM
This "country for immigrants" is a popular and erroneous view which has been used against us to destroy our race and national character, by mish-mashing with the culture of immigrants. Canada was founded by "immigrants", but that is no excuse to continue allowing in waves and waves.

I understand the European viewpoint that we're different than a country like Germany or England, but that's due to our ethnic make up which is more varied, and not because we were founded by immigrants, while Germany or England were not. They were too.

But Canada is just a newer nation than Germany or England. We have our national character and ethnic nationalism works here just as it does in Europe. Of course we have the dualism issue between Anglo-Canadians and French-Canadians, but that's as split as we will go. A "melting pot", or integrating foreigners doesn't go into only one direction, the foreigner becoming a New Canadian. It modifies our ethnic and racial make up and we don't want it.

Svartljos
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009, 07:09 AM
Indeed. "New Canadians" is a politically correct term to refer to immigrants and refugees.

....

I will agree. I've only ever seen or heard the term 'New Canadians' used by the Government, in the media, and by multi-cultural or left leaning institutions (such as Universities or those centres that help new immigrants move to the country), never actually by a person in real life. The only way I hear everyday people refer to immigrants is to say immigrants, foreigners, or maybe amongst my group of friends (I'm in uni) 'international students.' Even the most left wing people I know have no real problems saying brown, asian, usw. or even worse ('racist' words, which I'm sure everyone can imagine) quite frequently, or at least casually, sometimes in an ironic or jesting sense though.

I'm sure none of them would ever say it to someone's face in anger as an insult, although I go to school in a predominantly white city / university (probably like 95/85% white) so it makes sense that people are somewhat comfortable with that sort of thing, I guess.

So, saying that, I don't really think it's common amongst anyone I know to use the term 'New Canadian' for foreigners, I will agree with the Swede that started this whole thing. Maybe it's just due to where I live? Anyway, I find it kind of weird that anyone here would use the term, although I will agree with someone else who said that technically Canada was settled by various different ethnicities over the centuries (Mostly British/Irish and French until this century as far as I am aware though). I would refer to a black person born here as a Canadian, if they spoke English/French and spent the majority of their life here, but erm, I think I would not refer to a recent immigrant from anywhere (including the UK/France) as a 'new Canadian.'

Freja_se
Thursday, April 23rd, 2009, 05:12 PM
I've only ever seen or heard the term 'New Canadians' used by the Government, in the media, and by multi-cultural or left leaning institutions (such as Universities or those centres that help new immigrants move to the country), never actually by a person in real life. The only way I hear everyday people refer to immigrants is to say immigrants, foreigners, or maybe amongst my group of friends (I'm in uni) 'international students.' Even the most left wing people I know have no real problems saying brown, asian, usw. or even worse ('racist' words, which I'm sure everyone can imagine) quite frequently, or at least casually, sometimes in an ironic or jesting sense though.

I'm sure none of them would ever say it to someone's face in anger as an insult, although I go to school in a predominantly white city / university (probably like 95/85% white) so it makes sense that people are somewhat comfortable with that sort of thing, I guess.

So, saying that, I don't really think it's common amongst anyone I know to use the term 'New Canadian' for foreigners, I will agree with the Swede that started this whole thing. Maybe it's just due to where I live? Anyway, I find it kind of weird that anyone here would use the term, although I will agree with someone else who said that technically Canada was settled by various different ethnicities over the centuries (Mostly British/Irish and French until this century as far as I am aware though). I would refer to a black person born here as a Canadian, if they spoke English/French and spent the majority of their life here, but erm, I think I would not refer to a recent immigrant from anywhere (including the UK/France) as a 'new Canadian.'

Thank you for this great post. I was shocked and surprised to see someone here use AND defend the term. Even if in good faith I think one has to be careful and not use terms that go against what we believe in.

Multicultural propaganda, and terms like "New Canadians" invented by those who promote immigration, race mixing and globalization, is not what I expected to see in a place like this. To think and act independently, and not fall for anti-white propaganda is extremely important, I think. Terms like "New Canadian" are PC because it makes people view and accept foreigners as one of their own, when they are not. It is deceptive.

By the way, the day we agree to the "melting-pot" or any other pot for that matter, we can say goodbye to our race, and that is a fact.

Aemma
Monday, April 27th, 2009, 10:21 PM
This "country for immigrants" is a popular and erroneous view which has been used against us to destroy our race and national character, by mish-mashing with the culture of immigrants. Canada was founded by "immigrants", but that is no excuse to continue allowing in waves and waves.

I understand the European viewpoint that we're different than a country like Germany or England, but that's due to our ethnic make up which is more varied, and not because we were founded by immigrants, while Germany or England were not. They were too.

But Canada is just a newer nation than Germany or England. We have our national character and ethnic nationalism works here just as it does in Europe. Of course we have the dualism issue between Anglo-Canadians and French-Canadians, but that's as split as we will go. A "melting pot", or integrating foreigners doesn't go into only one direction, the foreigner becoming a New Canadian. It modifies our ethnic and racial make up and we don't want it.


Thanks compatriot, but what most of you fail to actually get from the OP's article is the issue of the difference between the 2 models: Model A which has been the Canadian model since dot called The Multicultural Mosaic versus Model B which has been the American model since dot called The Melting Pot and how Canada which has been steadfast in its adherence to Model A has lately been appropriating elements of Model B.

The issue in question is not whether or not either is approapriate or even desired. The issue is rather, given the choice of the two, this is where things seem to be heading. As a Canadian, AGAIN OUT OF THE TWO MODELS, AND ONLY THE TWO, which do you prefer? Which is the lesser of two evils?

Should anybody here truly wish to discuss the merits of what is truly posited in this article re: see previous paragraph, then let's discuss. Otherwise you're all missing the point and I'm afraid I'll fear more for my own in my own country whose ancestors came to establish this fair country well over 300 years ago now given this simple lack of comprehension of basic points put forth in such a basic article. :|

Svartljos
Tuesday, April 28th, 2009, 12:01 AM
...

The issue in question is not whether or not either is approapriate or even desired. The issue is rather, given the choice of the two, this is where things seem to be heading. As a Canadian, AGAIN OUT OF THE TWO MODELS, AND ONLY THE TWO, which do you prefer? Which is the lesser of two evils? ...


Well, obviously from most people here's standpoint, neither of the two are really desirable. But, of course, since there is going to be either one or the other, you have to look at the consequences each one brings.

Model A: People hold on to their old value and carve out cultural enclaves in traditional Canadian areas. They don't interact well with outside society and of course there are all the problems that come a long with that, although their separate identities probably help the average person not relate to them.

Model B: The assimilate, of course there is not going to be 100% assimilation, either group will take on some things of the other, and soon Canada's favourite foods might not be Poutine and Maple Syrup but Curry and Chicken Tikka like has happened in Britain. I suppose university favourites already include Donair. They won't culturally be discernable entirely, which would make any movement against any such thing more difficult to find common acceptance. "But they're no different from us, oh I am late for Bhangra; I can't talk about this right now."

What is preferable? As I doubt there will ever be a real Canadian nationalist movement based on Germanic culture, seeing as there are so many people here that are not Germanic (probably the majority, as far as I know.). Maybe the cultural mosaic model A is preferable if you want to segregate yourself, such as was done in South Africa for instance. These people are here to stay, I wouldn't try to delude myself.

Which would you prefer?

Nachtengel
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, 05:57 PM
One year after a provincial report on the accommodation of cultural minorities, a majority of Quebecers still say newcomers should give up their cultural traditions and become more like everybody else, according to a new poll.

Quebecers’ attitudes toward immigrants have hardened slightly since 2007, when the Bouchard-Taylor commission started hearings across Quebec on the “reasonable accommodation” of cultural communities.

The survey by Léger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies found that 40 per cent of francophones view non-Christian immigrants as a threat to Quebec society, compared with 32 per cent in 2007. Thirty-two per cent of non-francophones said non-Christian immigrants threaten Quebec society, compared with 34 per cent in 2007.

“If you look at opinions at the start of the Bouchard-Taylor commission and 18 months later, basically, they haven’t changed,” said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the non-profit research institute.

“If the hearings were designed to change attitudes, that has not occurred,” he added.

Headed by sociologist Gérard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor, the $3.7-million commission held hearings across Quebec on how far society should go to accommodate religious and cultural minorities. It received 900 briefs and heard from 3,423 participants in 22 regional forums.

Its report, made public one year ago Friday, made 37 recommendations, including abolishing prayers at municipal council meetings; increasing funding for community organizations that work with immigrants and initiatives to promote tolerance; providing language interpreters in health care; encouraging employers to allow time off for religious holidays; studying how to hire more minorities in the public service; and attracting immigrants to remote regions.

Rachad Antonius, a professor of sociology at the Université du Québec à Montréal, said it’s no surprise the commission failed to change Quebecers’ attitudes toward minorities.

“Focusing on cultural differences is the wrong approach,” Antonius said.

Cultural communities need to achieve economic equality by having access to education, social services and job opportunities, he said.

“If there is greater economic integration, that is what is going to change things,” he said.

The poll reveals persistent differences between younger and older Quebecers and between francophones and non-francophones on cultural and religious diversity.

For example, 56 per cent of respondents age 18 to 24 said Muslim girls should be allowed to wear hijabs in public schools, while only 30 per cent of those 55 and over approved of head scarves in school.

Sixty-three per cent of non-francophones said head scarves should be permitted in school compared with 32 per cent of French-speaking respondents.

Only 25 per cent of francophones said Quebec society should try harder to accept minority groups’ customs and traditions while 74 per cent of non-francophones said it should make more of an effort to do so.

The poll also found Quebecers split on an ethics and religion course introduced last year in schools across the province. A coalition of parents and Loyola High School, a private Catholic institution, are challenging the nondenominational course, which they say infringes parents’ rights to instill religious values in their children.

Half of francophones said the course was a good thing while 78 per cent of non-francophones gave it a thumbs up.

When asked their opinion of different religious groups, 88 per cent of French-speakers viewed Catholics favourably, 60 per cent viewed Jews favourably—down 12 percentage points from 2007—and 40 per cent had a favourable opinion of Muslims (compared with 57 per cent in 2007). Among non-francophones, 92 per cent viewed Catholics with favour, 77 per cent had a positive opinion of Jews and 65 a good opinion of Muslims.

A national poll published this month by Maclean’s Magazine also revealed that many Canadians are biased against religious minorities, particularly in Quebec.

The survey by Angus Reid Strategies reported that 68 per cent of Quebecers view Islam negatively while 52 per cent of Canadians as a whole have a low opinion of the religion.

It found that 36 per cent of Quebecers view Judaism unfavourably, compared with 59 per cent of Ontarians.

The Léger Marketing survey of 1,003 Quebecers was conducted by online questionnaire May 13-16. Results are considered accurate within 3.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/05/more_quebecers.php

Nachtengel
Saturday, July 11th, 2009, 11:06 PM
CALGARY - Canada's citizenship minister says it's a challenge to get immigrants to fit into society when only one-quarter of them actually take advantage of free language training.

Jason Kenney was in Calgary on Friday to announced $9.5 million in federal funding for nine organizations offering such training.

"Only a quarter of newcomers are enrolling in the programs that are offered by organizations like these," Kenney said. "Common sense just tells me that 25 per cent is too low and we'd like to see more people enrolling."

Improving language skills makes life easier for immigrants, Kenney said. He also suggested that learning the language is key to integrating people from different ethnic backgrounds into Canadian society.

"Our new focus is on integration. We don't want to create a bunch of silo communities where kids grow up in a community that more resembles their parents' country of origin than Canada," explained Kenney, who is also minister of immigration and multiculturalism.

"We want people to be Canadians first and foremost - to be proud of and maintain their own tradition and heritage, but not at the price of developing their Canadian identity."

Kenney said integration must involve language and needs to ensure immigrants become familiar with Canada's history, values and institutions.

A few months ago, also in Calgary, Kenney suggested federal immigration officials should enforce rules that say immigrants who want to become Canadians be able to communicate in French or English. He said those without proper language skills should be denied citizenship.

His views don't appear to have changed.

"To quote former (British) labour prime minister Tony Blair, newcomers have a right to be different but a duty to integrate, so they have to take the initiative," he said Friday. "It also requires the hard work of newcomers. They have to respond as well and take personal responsibility in the process of integration."

The government will continue to provide more services to people, so they can learn one of the official languages, something Kenney said is "a critical pathway to success in Canada."

The additional funding was welcomed by members of Calgary's immigrant community.

"Everyone knows that newcomers arriving here with a powerful desire to make a better life for themselves and their families," said Din Ladak, executive director of Immigrant Services Calgary. "They're willing to work toward their goals but often need our help."

"We're in the business of changing lives, one family after another, so that all newcomers become valuable and engaged contributing families."

Houra Youssouf came to Canada from Chad in May 2008 and did take language training.

"I was completely lost because I did not know how to speak, read or write in English. I was frustrated all the time and used to sit at home," she said.

But a year later she is now at Level 5 of her English training.

"My whole world has changed. Earlier, I was not confident at all but now everything is just perfect."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090710/national/integrate_immigrants

Resist
Saturday, July 18th, 2009, 12:05 AM
It's a contradiction. Integration comes with shedding part of the identity. But this contradiction wouldn't exist in the first place, were there some common sense about immigration.

Nachtengel
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 04:52 AM
For years, Canadians have been led to believe that mass immigration is necessary to fill labour shortages, make up for our low fertility rates and finance expensive social programs.

In a shot across the bow of political correctness, a new book by the Fraser Institute argues that these beliefs are myths and calls for a serious debate on Canadian immigration policy.

“Many of the reasons with which Canada justifies its high immigration intake are simply not valid and the economic and social costs are not open to discussion,” writes James Bissett, a former executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service.

“We may not yet have reached the tipping point,” he warns in the book, The Effects of Mass Immigration on Canadian Living Standards and Society. “But if we continue to sleepwalk into the 21st century and ignore this issue, we may find out too late that Canada has been unalterably changed.”

Various contributors weigh in on what they see as the consequences of mass immigration—Canada’s annual immigration rate is the highest in the world—and offer prescriptions for change.

Bissett calls for a temporary moratorium on new immigrants until the backlog has been eliminated.

He points out 80% of our immigrants are not in the skilled worker category but, rather, enter or are allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons or because they’ve been granted refugee status.

Canada needs to update its point system for selecting skilled workers so it better reflects the needs of the labour force, he adds.

In his essay, U. S. academic Vernon Briggs questions the quality of university education in certain immigrant-source countries. Very few Third World nations have elite universities, he writes, noting that only one institution from outside the industrialized world, the State University of Moscow, is on the list of the top 100 universities.

“The only way to ensure that the immigrants chosen will do better is to be more selective,” Briggs writes. “If Canadian universities chose foreign students the way (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) selected immigrants, half their classes would flunk out.”

Herb Grubel, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-editor of the book, examines the feasibility of financing social programs like pensions, welfare and health care and concludes that in order to meet such objectives immigration would have to skyrocket to 165 million by 2050. That year alone, we would have to take in seven million immigrants, he says.

That, he adds, creates the “impossibly large” problem of finding jobs for all those people.

The book also contends that high rates of immigration threaten to undermine our national identity and social fabric.

Canada has become nothing more than a “global suburb” for immigrants with Canadian passports living abroad, argues Stephen Gallagher, of the Canadian International Council, a foreign policy think-tank.

And Salim Mansur, who also writes a weekly column for Sun Media, warns that Canada’s secular, liberal-democratic character and security are endangered by unrestrained immigration.

“Religious or cultural wars are won and lost on the grounds of how confidently and tenaciously antagonists hold to their respective . . . values,” Mansur writes.

Critics will no doubt view this book as an anti-immigrant diatribe. On the contrary, it’s a plea for a smart, retooled immigration policy and a slap in the face to those who would stifle discussion on such a crucial issue.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/10/immigration_bad.php

Nachtengel
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 11:17 AM
Canada has announced plans to maintain high levels of immigration in 2011.

In announcing the annual immigration plan in Parliament, Canada Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said immigrants bring strong economic benefits needed to aid the economic recovery.

“Canada's post-recession economy demands a high level of legal immigration to keep our work force strong,” he said.

Canada immigration levels in 2011 are estimated to be between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents.

Canada’s ageing population and low birth rate were also cited as reasons why the country’s workforce needed to be bolstered.

Changes to be introduced in the 2011 plan include higher admissions for family visas in Canada, and increased refugee intake.

Canada visa applicants under the Federal Skilled Worker Program will remain a significant portion of new arrivals.

Canada’s annual immigration plan is announced in Parliament on November 1 of each year.

http://www.globalvisas.com/news/future_plans_for_canada_immigration_reve aled2718.html

Ingvaeonic
Friday, December 24th, 2010, 11:36 AM
We have here in Australia a very similar immigration policy to Canada's--and they are both lousy.

Arktischer
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 12:33 AM
I can confirm this from the Canadian point of view.

InvaderNat
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 10:18 PM
What's the level of unemployment in Canada at the moment? Probably quite high I'm guessing. Yet still more immigration is allowed. :thumbdown
It never fails to disgust me what bulls**t excuses for immigration they can come up with, it's almost a sad joke how anyone could actually believe high levels of 3rd world immigration bring economic benefits. :(

wittwer
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010, 02:18 PM
Looks like the Canadian Parliament is in the pockets of Owners, Shareholders and Management. What better way to drive wages, salaries and benefits down than to practice Labor Arbitrage via Immigration. In the very near future, expect the Canadian Standard of living to fall dramatically for 95% of the population, while the top 5% percent increases dramatically...

Ælfrun
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 03:44 AM
That is horrible, a lot of Canadians do not want to do the "dirt work" so the Goverment likes Immigrants to work on farms and such. They do the jobs we do not want to for less money, and then end up bringing their families over and buying huge houses. They end up cramming like 20 family members into one house and then they start businesses and own farms. It is sad and sickening!

Meister
Monday, January 10th, 2011, 12:05 PM
That is horrible, a lot of Canadians do not want to do the "dirt work" so the Goverment likes Immigrants to work on farms and such. They do the jobs we do not want to for less money, and then end up bringing their families over and buying huge houses. They end up cramming like 20 family members into one house and then they start businesses and own farms. It is sad and sickening!

We have the same problem in Australia. My solution is only give people welfare when there really is no work, if work exists than the unemployed should go and do it. It is a joke that we are allowing in immigrants whilst white people are sitting on the welfare.

arvak
Monday, January 10th, 2011, 01:10 PM
From what group does the immigration come from, which ethenic group and groups?

Loyalist
Monday, January 10th, 2011, 01:58 PM
From what group does the immigration come from, which ethenic group and groups?

Africans (mostly West Africans and Somalis) and Asians (Middle Easterners and South-East Orientals) primarily, but I am also noticing an increasing number of Latin Americans. The former are responsible for a resurgence of diseases we eradicated decades ago, including polio and tuberculosis. There have also been cases of African immigrants spreading AIDs, with authorities and media being unwilling to address the problem out of PC concerns. As for European immigration, it has mostly dried up, aside from a few UK nationals and a larger number of Gypsies from Eastern European nations. Recently in my city, a family of Hungarian Gypsies were found to be running a human trafficking/slave ring.

Despite the lies being peddled by Jason Kenney, Canada does not need immigrants for any type of economic recovery or stability. There are scores of native-born citizens who are jobless, some by choice, some not, and they should be given priority in filling low-pay positions as opposed to the illiterate, diseased human garbage being imported from the third world. Dismantling the welfare state to force the citizens in question to work, in conjunction with halting immigration, would accomplish this task. I should add, however, that not all such immigrats are imported to fill unskilled positions. Canada is receiving African and Indian physicians with medical degrees from their respective nations, allowing them to begin practicing almost immediately. Needless to say none of them will ever put their hands on me.

Bloemfontein
Wednesday, January 12th, 2011, 08:46 AM
For every Immigrant they let in for example from India they should have a reciprocal agreement to export a White-trash dole-claiming Canadian to India for example(or Somalia, Libya, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland Lesotho and South Africa) - after a couple of years the white-trash would be cured of laziness and would become highly productive citizens / either that or they would let themselves be eaten by native diseases and poverty.

Donnerschall
Sunday, January 16th, 2011, 09:40 PM
For every Immigrant they let in for example from India they should have a reciprocal agreement to export a White-trash dole-claiming Canadian to India for example(or Somalia, Libya, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland Lesotho and South Africa) - after a couple of years the white-trash would be cured of laziness and would become highly productive citizens / either that or they would let themselves be eaten by native diseases and poverty.

Why to South Africa? We are only too glad if any white trash, Coolie or Kaffir immigrates, which if, they mostly do to any of the other still predominantly white British commonwealth countries.

politicalsoldier
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011, 07:51 AM
This is an excellent opportunity, our dislocation and isolation grant the ability to coalesce coordination among those so willing by nature, self-identified, to stand up and come forward. Now we are starting to see ourselves for who are, not in spite or contrast, but by the condition of our individual yearning for collective advancement. We are a people, and no matter where we are born, this is part of us. We do not need to be geographically isolated to be complete. We have all the necessary technologies. No matter where we are we can find our way, share insights into our unique condition. Every one of us is the blueprint. Let's share the best of ourselves, discover our potential, and may every step be in the right direction. I personally want to create a Germanic economic framework irrespective of borders. We need to be economically independent.

Gardisten
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 06:21 PM
Given Canada's long experience with multiculturalism, the anti-immigrant message underlying the Norway massacre seems less of a threat here, though the rise in hate crimes and negative political rhetoric in this country are ominous warning signs, experts say.

There’s no reason for Canadians to be smugly confident, says Barbara Perry, associate dean of the faculty of social science and humanities at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

Pockets of resistance to changing demographics exist in Canada — most notably in Quebec and Western Canada — just as they do in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, Perry says.

"It's almost a reaction to multiculturalism rather than acceptance of multiculturalism,” she said in an interview from the Oshawa, Ont., university. “Everyone doesn't welcome it. It's not universally loved, this notion of being open to all comers."

Some experts see Canada’s brand of multiculturalism as a shield against the kind of hatred that apparently drove Anders Behring Breivik — whom police describe as right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist — for the bombing and shooting rampage at a youth camp in which 76 people were killed in Norway.

"Canada is a haven and very unique in this world, in the sense that the public understands the importance of immigration to Canada,” says Usha George, dean of the faculty of community studies at Ryerson University.

Just hours before the Norway attacks, Breivik posted a 1,500-page manifesto online, apparently years in the making and setting the stage for a small group of modern-day Crusaders to seize military and political control of Europe in order to save it from "cultural Marxism" and the "enablers of Islamization."

In Canada there is an official commitment to multiculturalism, but this country also has a long history of racism and xenophobia, says Perry.

...

Despite Canada's ingrained multicultural policy, the threat here is real, say experts, pointing to a jump in the number of hate groups operating on the web and the spike in hate crimes.

"There are easily 10 to 20 groups currently operating in Canada that we are considering white supremacist, neo-Nazi," says Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former CSIS agent who used to track radical goups in Canada. Police routinely scour websites, blogs and social networking sites for any danger signs.

"So far we have not picked up any [threats] of a massive attack similar to what we see in Norway, although that said, we won't necessarily reveal it even if the authority had it because it would be under investigation," says Juneau-Katsuya. "We are watching those people because they represent on an individual basis, fairly violent threat."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/03/multicultural-experts.html

Heinrich Harrer
Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 07:02 PM
"We are watching those people because they represent on an individual basis, fairly violent threat."

Barbara Perry teaches at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. (Barbara Perry) In 2009, 400 anti-racism activists clashed with about 50 members of the neo-Nazi Aryan Guard in Calgary, marching to commemorate "White Pride World Day."


Oh the horror, how could they celebrate a white pride day... (interesting how they always use the word 'marching'). Parades and celebrations for minority groups or multiculturalism on the other hand are wonderful events. And of course the violence created by leftist thugs far outnumbering and attacking them is cited as proof that they're violent.


In 2004, the library at another Jewish school in Montreal was destroyed by fire. A note left at the scene said it was in retaliation for the Israeli army's killing of a Hamas leader in the Middle East. A 19-year-old man was sentenced to two years in prison for that attack.

I wonder if that 19-year-old man was a muslim immigrant. :chinrub

It strikes me as unlikely that someone from the right-wing would have justified his attack with the killing of a Hamas leader in the Middle East.

This seems to be another new tactic, trying to blame the european right-wing for muslim attacks on jews.

Different country, but the same old media smear tactics.

Ælfrun
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 05:12 AM
Norway style violence? Ridiculous that is! Of course we dislike multi culturalism! It is the government, not the people who are letting these immigrants in. I have discussed this issue with many people in my town, and the response that I received was "five years ago there were no Somalis here, and no crime." People in Canada are beginning to wake up and see how dangerous these war ridden cultures are to our country.

Canadians embrace Germanic culture (and aboriginal) it seems, more so than the others. This is to be expected since Canada was founded on Viking and aboriginal settlements.
There are several "white pride" groups in Canada. I know several members that I am not involved with, but they do not cause much trouble. They like to keep to themselves and have little gatherings. The crime is caused within the immigrant groups. Unfortunately when a crime happens in a place like Calgary, of course the media will put blame on the Aryan guard, which is not even together anymore.

I do not know what is going to happen, but from what I am personally experiencing, people are finally becoming aware of the dangers of multi culturalism. Germanics are such a minority here, but I do not think any sort of violent resistance will happen any time soon.

Svartljos
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 04:17 PM
...Canadians embrace Germanic culture (and aboriginal) it seems, more so than the others. This is to be expected since Canada was founded on Viking and aboriginal settlements. ...

Really? If I recall, the Vikings were driven out about a thousand years ago. I always thought Canada was founded by French / British. Vikings had little to do with it really.

Æmeric
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 04:35 PM
Really? If I recall, the Vikings were driven out about a thousand years ago. I always thought Canada was founded by French / British. Vikings had little to do with it really.

The Norse settlements didn't last long, the Norse retreated to Greenland & that settlement eventually failed around 1500 AD. Quebec & Acadia were founded by the French, the rest of Canada (starting with Newfoundland in the 16th century) was founded by the English & British. Canada's unique political settlement has always made it multicultural but it was English-Canada vs Francophone Quebec until Trudeau introduced mulitculturalism as official poicy in the late 1960s, along with a multiracial immigration policy.

Svartljos
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 04:43 PM
The Norse settlements didn't last long, the Norse retreated to Greenland & that settlement eventually failed around 1500 AD. Quebec & Acadia were founded by the French, the rest of Canada (starting with Newfoundland in the 16th century) was founded by the English & British. Canada's unique political settlement has always made it multicultural but it was English-Canada vs Francophone Quebec until Trudeau introduced mulitculturalism as official poicy in the late 1960s, along with a multiracial immigration policy.

Yes I agree, I just thought it was absurd to claim Canada was founded by the Vikings when they honestly had nothing to do with it. There is absolutely no political connection between "Vinland" in northern Newfoundland and the Canada that was formed by the merger of the Two Canadas in the 1800s (which wouldn't even include Newfoundland until 1949). There aren't even a great number of people with Scandinavian ancestry in Canada to be honest. Including Finns, it's 4%, and most of those are in the West. I am sure they did a good job settling that farm land, though it was a British dominion when they did it :p.

Ælfrun
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 04:50 PM
During the latter 19th century, large areas of Minnesota and the Dakotas became compact bloc settlements of Scandinavians, even more highly organized than their German counterparts for the preservation of ethnic identity; by 1890, close to 20,000 Norwegian immigrants had settled in South Dakota alone. Relatively few Scandinavians had immigrated as yet into Saskatchewan, but this situation changed markedly: despite little active encouragement of emigration in Scandinavia itself by the Canadian government, the number of people of Scandinavian origin resident in Saskatchewan increased from 1,452 in 1901 to 33,991 in 1911. During that decade large areas of the province were settled by people of Scandinavian origin, who thus added to the compact bloc settlements already established by Swedes in 1885 and 1889, by Icelanders in 1886–93, and by Finns in 1887.

By 1911, Scandinavian and Finnish immigrants and Scandinavian-Americans had founded a dozen primarily NORWEGIAN SETTLEMENTS, half a dozen smaller SWEDISH SETTLEMENTS, three Icelandic, one Danish, and a couple of FINNISH SETTLEMENTS. The most recent census data (2001) revealed that 109,560 Saskatchewan residents claimed Scandinavian (including Finnish) ethnic origins, of whom 14% (15,310) claimed only a single Scandinavian ethnic origin while the vast majority, 86% (94,260) claimed more than a single ethnic origin: 55.2% (60,510) were of Norwegian origin, 27.3% (29,900) of Swedish origin, 8.6% (9,375) Danish, 5.6% (6,100) Icelandic, and 3.4% (3,675) Finnish.

http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/scandinavian_settlements.html

Svartljos
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 04:53 PM
http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/scandinavian_settlements.html

Wow. Canada was an independent Dominion in 1867, decades before these alleged settlements were even established.

Edit: Not to mention, I don't think the ones who came here in the late 1800s early 1900s were actually Vikings :p. Unless they came on ships to pillage Montréal and Halifax and conveniently decided to stay.

Sigurd
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 05:05 PM
Wow. Canada was an independent Dominion in 1867, decades before these alleged settlements were even established.

Your point being? In 1867, Canada was only parts of Quebec and parts of Ontario. Most of today's terrotory was acquired until 1873; however most of it was retained not as a province, but as a more independent territory.

Saksatchewan, the province mentioned in the article wasn't fully integrated as a province until 1905 if I got my facts right and grand-scale European settlement didn't begin until the construction for the Canadian Pacific Railway started, in the early 1880s. So in that respect, Scandinavian settlers in the area could very well be termed as pioneers. ;)

Svartljos
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 05:21 PM
Your point being? In 1867, Canada was only parts of Quebec and parts of Ontario. Most of today's terrotory was acquired until 1873; however most of it was retained not as a province, but as a more independent territory.

Saksatchewan, the province mentioned in the article wasn't fully integrated as a province until 1905 if I got my facts right and grand-scale European settlement didn't begin until the construction for the Canadian Pacific Railway started, in the early 1880s. So in that respect, Scandinavian settlers in the area could very well be termed as pioneers. ;)

Actually, she said Canada was founded on Viking and Aboriginal settlements. No mention of the French or British, which is odd enough, but it's made odder by the fact that Canada was founded at a time with minimal Scandinavian Settlement. Scandinavians weren't even that great in number in Saskatchewan (setting the goal posts further here, as now we're talking about a western province, and not Canada as an entirety) in 1911. The population in 1911 in Saskatchewan was 492,432, hardly unpopulated, of which only 33,991 were Scandinavian (6.7%), including Finns.

And they weren't Vikings ;).

Gardisten
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 07:48 PM
Not sure why claiming that Canada was founded on Viking settlements is being disputed. It's now well-established that there was at least one Viking settlement in North America, and there is evidence to suggest that they were traveling about to some extent. How much we will never know because the archeological record will never be determined to its full extent. The notion that there was significant Pre-Columbus European contact with North America has been controversial--for example, the work of Barry Fell. Especially given the current ideological climate in academia, the chances that any progress will be made in this respect is next to nothing. Native myths about their ownership and entitlement to our land is so entrenched that the academics will simply not dare to dispute it.

Alfadur
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 07:55 PM
Not sure why claiming that Canada was founded on Viking settlements is being disputed.
Because it wasn't. The country we know as Canada took shape long after the last Vikings had disappeared. It was, as another poster said, the British and French settlers who founded Canada.

This is like claiming that South Africa was founded by Portugal, and not the Boers. Only because the Portuguese explorers happened to get there first.

Svartljos
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 07:57 PM
Not sure why claiming that Canada was founded on Viking settlements is being disputed. It's now well-established that there was at least one Viking settlement in North America, and there is evidence to suggest that they were traveling about to some extent. How much we will never know because the archeological record will never be determined to its full extent. The notion that there was significant Pre-Columbus European contact with North America has been controversial--for example, the work of Barry Fell. Especially given the current ideological climate in academia, the chances that any progress will be made in this respect is next to nothing. Native myths about their ownership and entitlement to our land is so entrenched that the academics will simply not dare to dispute it.

Because Vikings had a or some small settlements in Newfoundland a thousand years ago and left (which I don't dispute) does not mean that Canada was founded by Vikings. It's like saying Rome was founded by the Etruscans, or England was founded by the Romans.

Vikings were in the East. Vikings left. 500 years later, Canada was settled by the French and later the English/British, settlements which were permanent and formed the basis for the colonies which later became Canada. Nothing at all to do with the Vikings. I'm sorry. I agree they were here a millenium ago, but not that they founded Canada. Take a look at the Fathers of Confederation if you want to see who founded it.

And I should note, I am pretty sure there are way more Germans (and possibly even more Ukranians) in the west than Scandinavians, so I just find the claim that Canada was founded by Vikings absurd. Absurd!

Æmeric
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 08:28 PM
Your point being? In 1867, Canada was only parts of Quebec and parts of Ontario. Most of today's terrotory was acquired until 1873; however most of it was retained not as a province, but as a more independent territory.

Saksatchewan, the province mentioned in the article wasn't fully integrated as a province until 1905 if I got my facts right and grand-scale European settlement didn't begin until the construction for the Canadian Pacific Railway started, in the early 1880s. So in that respect, Scandinavian settlers in the area could very well be termed as pioneers. ;)

Like the Upper Midwestern States (Minnesota, the Dakotas, Iowa) the Prairie Provinces were founded by Anglo-Saxons. They created the economic, legal & political enviroment in which the province developed. There were many Scandinavian & German settlers in the region but also many Anglo-Americans & Anglo-Canadians in the Upper Midwest, along with some Slavs in the larger cities & pockets of Czechs in parts of Iowa & Nebraska. Anglo-Canadians also settled the Prairie Provinces, along with Anglo-Americans from the Midwest. And lots of Ukrainians.

Aside from the various annual local German & Scandinavian festivals, the main influence from the immigration of Scandinavians (and to a lesser extent the Germans) is political, in the form of a Prairie Popularism (Progressive, Socialism) that has greatly influenced local politics in that region & accounts for the Upper Midwest as being a "Blue State" area, which Obama carried easily in 2008.

Gardisten
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 09:27 PM
The claim was that Canada was founded on aboriginal and Viking settlements. There was at least one known Viking settlement in North America and evidence to suggest that there presence was nevertheless somewhat widespread. There was a pre-Columbus occupation by Europeans--likely more than just by the Vikings--in North America, and that represents a part of our heritage and collective identity.


Because it wasn't. The country we know as Canada took shape long after the last Vikings had disappeared. It was, as another poster said, the British and French settlers who founded Canada.

I see no need to make sarcastic remarks about Canada's political history; I'm more than well aware about what went on to bring about Confederation and the distinctions between the various political entities that pre-dated "Canada". The problem seems to be that you're missing the ultimate point of including the Vikings in the cultural evolution of Canada. If you prefer to accept the conventional (current) textbook interpretation of Canadian history, then go right ahead; I'm not sure why you feel the need to come here and dispute alternative interpretations and try to downplay or dismiss certain historic connections between Germanic culture and Canada.


Vikings were in the East. Vikings left. 500 years later, Canada was settled by the French and later the English/British, settlements which were permanent and formed the basis for the colonies which later became Canada. Nothing at all to do with the Vikings. I'm sorry. I agree they were here a millenium ago, but not that they founded Canada. Take a look at the Fathers of Confederation if you want to see who founded it.

The claim wasn't made that it was founded by Vikings.


And I should note, I am pretty sure there are way more Germans (and possibly even more Ukranians) in the west than Scandinavians, so I just find the claim that Canada was founded by Vikings absurd. Absurd!

Svartljos
Monday, August 8th, 2011, 09:50 PM
The claim was that Canada was founded on aboriginal and Viking settlements. There was at least one known Viking settlement in North America and evidence to suggest that there presence was nevertheless somewhat widespread. There was a pre-Columbus occupation by Europeans--likely more than just by the Vikings--in North America, and that represents a part of our heritage and collective identity.



I see no need to make sarcastic remarks about Canada's political history; I'm more than well aware about what went on to bring about Confederation and the distinctions between the various political entities that pre-dated "Canada". The problem seems to be that you're missing the ultimate point of including the Vikings in the cultural evolution of Canada. If you prefer to accept the conventional (current) textbook interpretation of Canadian history, then go right ahead; I'm not sure why you feel the need to come here and dispute alternative interpretations and try to downplay or dismiss certain historic connections between Germanic culture and Canada.



The claim wasn't made that it was founded by Vikings.

This is pretty inconsequential, no one here would deny that there was once a Norse settlement in Canada, but that's not what Aelfrun originally meant. She explained it was a mix up to me anyway, but never the less, even if we want to take it to mean "physically founded literally upon" Viking settlements, I doubt that. We didn't even know where these potential settlements were until the one was found in the 60s, and I am pretty sure no settlements literally lie upon L'anse aux Meadows. Furthermore, you could say that "Canada" wasn't founded "on" Viking settlements until 1949, when Newfoundland joined.

But anyway, the fact that Vikings settled here and left a really long time ago has nothing to do with Canada at all, and is really just an interesting "oh, really" fact to me and many people. There is really no connection between Canada and and the failed Vinland colony, other than the physical location. There is no element in the mentality of Canadians (or, there shouldn't be at least) that they are the decendants of Vikings who were stranded here a thousand years ago, because it's not the case. There really should be no feeling of relatedness at all to these people, outside of Norwegian/Icelandic Canadians who would of course likely be related to them somewhere along the line.

The only reason I want to "downplay" the connection, is because there really is no connection. At least not as far as Canadian/British/French history goes. They didn't leave their culture in Vinland, nor did they leave their language, and besides some ruins, there is no mark of them ever being there, at least not in Canada (it is mentioned in the Sagas I'm sure, but that's not Canadian history).

Also, I think it's possible there are more abandoned settlements in Labrador/Nunavut, but, I don't feel like they have anything to do with Canadian history, but rather Norse history.

Veritas Æquitas
Sunday, November 13th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Apparently many muslims are voting and trying to have this passed and they are at 73% with a "yes" vote now so our vote "no" is urgently required. Please send this on to everyone who you know will vote "no" - They took Christian prayer out of the schools years ago and we should have fought then. It's never too late! Please email to as many as possible as the vote is not in our favour at this point in time - speak up.

We need your vote - for CityTV poll--- (Urgent)

What happens in Toronto will have an impact across this country... so if you don't want this to happen in more schools you need to vote "no" .

Aside from the religious part of this how in the world are they going to fit in praying 5 times a day??? Will this take away from the curriculum time they are already crying out "not enough time" so this then would become a political issue next.?

With having to pay someone to supervise and so on...
Vote "no"! We get our rights denied and they think they have the right to ask?

There is something wrong here... and if there are more Muslims out there voting it will be passed.

Click the site below it will take you to CTV's site and you will see where to vote in the middle of the page... :)

Just to let you know the Lords Prayer and all Christianity has been taken out of our public schools. Now they want to allow Muslim prayer in our schools!

Please click on the blue link below and vote against thisinjustice. Our rights as Christian Canadians is being violated. Thanks for voting & sending this on so that others will see the injustice.

Vote "NO" and pass it on to others immediately so they can vote also. Thanks. It's on CityTV website - so far the vote is 51% to 49%. Help us on this poll vote..

It is crucial that you vote "no" against Muslim prayers being conducted in Public Schools, while Christian prayers are not permitted!!!

Thank you so much for your help.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/144877--groups-protest-muslim-prayers-at-toronto-public-school

Nachtengel
Saturday, June 16th, 2012, 10:34 PM
The common refrain is that Canada needs immigration to mitigate current and future labour shortages and to help pay the medical bills for our aging population.

The Fraser Institute says hogwash to that. The sometimes controversial right-wing think tank says recent immigrants are actually a huge burden to Canadian taxpayers.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/recent-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-over-16-billion-canada-225603638.html

Hersir
Sunday, June 17th, 2012, 12:01 AM
In Norway it has been revelead that neither here does immigration pay off. So much for the argument that we need immigrants because we have to replenish the labour force. The argument has not been used widely in the last years, because we import mostly people from villages in the third world.

Sven
Sunday, June 17th, 2012, 09:27 PM
Lack of skilled labour is the mantra we get to hear on a daily basis from politicans and corporations alike, so much for the welfare state being the number one reason for immigration as our American friends would have us think.
If anything we need a lot less people. 80 million in a country the size of Germany is madness you cannot go anywhere without running into people. I really envy you guys in Scandinavia and Canada.

Nachtengel
Friday, November 11th, 2016, 08:29 PM
Even though there are 1.3 million unemployed people in Canada, that country’s government has announced that it seeks a further 300,000 “immigrants” into the country next year.

Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Minister John McCallum told reporters that the new number “lays the foundation for future growth in immigration targets.”

The target number of immigrants from 2011 to 2015 was 260,000, but swelled to 300,000 this year because of what McCallum called the “special circumstances” of the Syrian refugee crisis.

McCallum claimed that the immigrants were needed to “boost the economy,” but statistics released by the government’s own statistical bureau show that there are currently 1,363,100 unemployed in Canada, making a mockery of his assertion.

According to the China Economic Net report on McCallum’s speech, the 2017 target boosts entries for those in the economic class—the so-called “skilled workers, businesspeople and caregivers”—to 172,500 from 160,600. In the family class, the number of sponsored spouses, partners, children, parents, and grandparents will climb to 84,000 from 80,000.

According to Statistics Canada figures, that country officially had a foreign-born population of about 6,775,800 people in 2011, representing 20.6 percent of the total population.

Between 2006 and 2011, around 1,162,900 foreign-born people immigrated to Canada. These recent immigrants made up 17.2 percent of the foreign-born population and 3.5 percent of the total population in Canada.

Statistics Canada reports that “Asia (including the Middle East) was Canada’s largest source of immigrants during the past five years, although the share of immigration from Africa, Caribbean, Central and South America increased slightly.”

More than 200 ethnic origins were reported in the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS). In 2011, 13 different ethnic origins had surpassed the one million mark.

Nearly 6,264,800 people identified themselves as a member of a “visible minority” group. They represented 19.1 percent of the total population. Of these “visible minorities,” 30.9 percent were born in Canada and 65.1 percent were born outside the country and came to live in Canada as immigrants.

Combined, the three largest “visible minority” groups—South Asians, Chinese, and Blacks—accounted for 61.3 percent of the “visible minority” population in 2011. They were followed by Filipinos, Latin Americans, Arabs, Southeast Asians, West Asians, Koreans, and Japanese.

The “visible minority” population had a median age of 33.4 in 2011, compared with 40.1 for the population as a whole, which means that the younger generations are going to be more heavily nonwhite than the older—and that the nonwhite to white replacement rate is going to speed up dramatically in a short while.
http://newobserveronline.com/canada-immigration-unemployment/

Wulfaz
Saturday, November 12th, 2016, 10:45 AM
I have a picture about Canada as I have heard about from closely source. The social support system in Canada one of the highest in the World. If a man goes there and he settles there, he will a bunch of money of the state. I have heard about people whos have not a job, but they have anything and they roll with expensive Audi car. And well, they are whites.

This is simply. Where the "free money" the people will go there. Hence I against a plan of the European Leftists that they want give "free money" for anyone. If the half World do not go to Europa, especially Germany, with this "free money" project the another half of the World will go to Europa, especially Germany.

Æmeric
Saturday, November 12th, 2016, 06:11 PM
One thing to remember about "visible minority" in Canada is that it does not include First Nations/Aboriginals. That is another 3%-4% of the population. Euro-Canadians are around 76%. That's excluding Jews.

I do like the phrase "Visible Minority" because it includes Latin Americans and Middle Easterners, unlike in the US whee the get lumped in with White.:thumbdown

Nachtengel
Monday, August 7th, 2017, 08:28 PM
150 Year Old Canada Experiencing Highest Levels Of Immigration Ever

The dishonest Canadian establishment wants us to believe that the incredibly high levels of immigration we have been experiencing since the early 1990s, ranging from 225-000 to 320,000 immigrants per year, are not historically unprecedented but part of a normal pattern in our "nation of immigrants."

Century Initiative says:
Historically, Canada has successfully supported very high levels of immigration. In 1913, 400,000 immigrants arrived in Canada, representing over 5.2% of the population at the time.
On the surface this may seem like an honest statistic. Stats Canada is even more emphatic that "record numbers of immigrants were admitted in the early 1900s...The highest number ever recorded was in 1913, when more than 400,000 immigrants arrived."

Ethnic Composition of Immigrants Today Is Fundamentally Different

However, as Stats Canada notes, before the 1970s, immigrants "were mainly from European countries." As I also observed in a widely read article:
Over the 400 years before Confederation, there were only "two quite limited periods" of substantial arrivals of immigrants: from 1783 to 1812, and from 1830 to 1850. In these two periods, the immigrants were "overwhelmingly of British origin." [...] Between 1896 and 1914, Canada experienced high immigration levels with more than 3 million arriving within this period. However, the ethnic composition of the nation remained 84 percent of British and French origin, while the European component rose to 9 percent. Between 1900 and 1915, the high mark in "Asian immigration" before the 1960s, 50,000 immigrants of Japanese, East Indian and Chinese descent arrived, but this number comprised less than 2 percent of the total immigration flow. In contrast, in 1914, there were nearly 400,000 Germans in Canada, the largest ethnic group apart from the British (which includes the Irish and Scots) and French.
Facing these facts, the personnel of Century Initiative, and the academic establishment which has an inherent incapacity for critical thinking, would likely reply that their point has nothing to do with race but with the numbers of immigrants, as well as how "successfully" Canada integrated these high numbers in the past.

But this is a simplistic reply. For it matters a lot that the Canada that accepted high numbers in the early 1900s was a Canada determined to maintain the Anglo-European character of the nation. Ninety percent of the immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain. In stark contrast, the top three sources countries for immigration in the last 10 years have been China, India, and the Philippines.

It is rather lazy to extrapolate that our current majority non-Western immigrants are bound to be "successfully" integrated because the Anglo-European immigrants before 1961 were so integrated. There is abundant research showing that Europeans are more individualistic in their values, whereas non-Europeans are more collectivist. Due to complex historical reasons, Whites have a greater inclination to value the individuality and rights of each person, whereas Asians, and non-Whites generally, have a stronger inclination to think in terms of the interests of their ethnic in-group members.

Here are some links to studies corroborating the individualist values of Europeans versus the collectivist values of non-Europeans:
Individualism vs. Collectivism in Different Cultures: A Cross-cultural Study
Collectivist Value Orientations Among Four Ethnic Groups: Collectivism in the New Zealand Context (PDF)
Understanding the Individualism—Collectivism Cleavage and its Effects: Lessons from Cultural Psychology (PDF)
http://web.uri.edu/iaics/files/07-Catherine-Konsky-Mariko-Eguchi-Janet-Blue-Suraj-Kapoor.pdf (PDF)
http://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/Coon%202001%20individualism%20and%20coll ectivism.pdf (PDF)
Therefore, one cannot use the White-only immigration numbers of the early 1900s to justify the current majority Asian numbers. What we are witnessing today, with our historically high immigration numbers, is an extreme experiment aimed at the destruction of the ethnic identity of White-created countries in the name of an idea written on paper about the superiority of race-mixed nations. There is absolutely zero evidence that this experience has been "successful" anywhere in the world since it has never been tried before. History shows that those nations with historically-inherited diverse populations have been the most divided and conflict ridden (Joan Esteban and Debraj Ray, "On the Salience of Ethnic Conflict," The American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 5, 2008).

History is also showing that the ever more diversified nations of the West are now experiencing continuous terrorist attracts, massive welfare expenditures for immigrants, and systematic raping of White girls by members of collectivist cultures.

Historically Highest Number of Immigrants Since Early 1990s

Moreover, the fact is that, strictly in terms of the numbers alone, the period between 1896 and 1914, which is the period that diversity hacks say experienced the "highest levels of immigration," has been surpassed by the longer period from 1990 to 2017. We have been experiencing since 1990 the longest period of high immigration in Canada. Between 1991 and 2000, about 2.2 million immigrants were admitted to Canada, and between 2001 and 2006 an annual average of 242,000 individuals were welcome with open arms. During the five year period from 2006 to 2011, Canada welcomed over 1,162,900 immigrants, an average above 250,000 per year. The trend has been upwards. In 2012, it admitted 257,905 immigrants; in 2013, it welcomed 259,024, and in 2014 it admitted 260,411. In 2015, the number was increased to 271,660, and in 2016 to 300,000. It is estimated that as many as 320,000 new immigrants will be welcomed in 2017.

In contrast, only for the singular years of 1907, 1908, and 1911 to 1914, that is a mere 4 years, did the number of immigrants to Canada stood above 200,000, whereas since the early 1990s, the number has remained at an average of approximately 235,000 new immigrants per year. We have everything reason to mistrust the "experts" who tell us with a smug attitude that Canada had higher levels in the early 1900s. Let them know that during the last 25 years or so we have been experiencing the highest levels of immigration.

The Century Initiative plan to bring 450,000 per year until the end of this century has no parallels whatsoever in the history of any nation since the origins of humans. It is a malicious act of deception, therefore, to justify current immigration levels by referring to the "historically" high levels of immigration of the early 1900s.

Immigration numbers today are fast destroying the ethnic and cultural identity of the founding peoples of Canada. The prediction is that by the end of this century White Canadians will constituted only 20 percent of the population inside a nation controlled by 80 percent non-Whites lusting to eliminate what they will happily identify as the "White trash" leftovers.

If you don't want your children to live in this impending dystopia, support CEC.


http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2017/06/150-year-old-canada-experiencing-highest-levels-of-immigration-in-history.html

Nachtengel
Monday, October 2nd, 2017, 12:57 PM
The Censorious Anti-White "Inclusiveness" Of Multiculti Canada

Among the many predictable reactions of the Canadian corporate media to the Alt-Right march in Charlottesville, two articles from the Globe & Mail contain all you need to know about the ignorant, hate-filled attitude of our Canadian establishment against any criticism of mass immigration.

John Ibbitson's Newspeak

The title of John Ibbitson's article, Andrew Scheer's Inclusive Appeal Shouldn't Leave Room For Alt-Right, captures in one scoop the true meaning of the endless child-like advocacy of "inclusiveness" in its exclusion of Canadians identified as "alt right" the moment they exhibit any "strain of populist, anti-immigrant nativism."

Ibbitson is supposedly a "far from typical" "right-wing columnist" in "his unorthodox views," though he is best described as a simple, docile servant of a Canadian state that expects everyone to accept mass immigration without questioning. He says the violence in Charlottesville should teach the Conservative Party once and for all to truly become "inclusive" of "all Canadians — including immigrant Canadians and Muslim Canadians both newly arrived and native born." Conservatives must say "very loudly" that they "will not tolerate" any Canadian who is intolerant of the state-imposed diversification mandate.

While playing up alarmist images about the impending take over of the West by "Nazis," Ibbitson also wants you to think that his call for inclusiveness is all about excluding a few Alt-Right "racists" that violate the principle of tolerance. For some decades the establishment has been deceptively insisting that the principle of tolerance cannot include "small groups of extreme right wing" "racists."

Yet the truth remains that over the last decades a very high percentage of Canadians have been very critical of mass immigration and diversity mandates. In a recent poll, almost half of Canadians stated that "migrants and refugees who illegally cross into Canada at the U.S. border should be sent back to the states."

In a survey conducted in 2013, they actually said that legal immigration should be cut in the future:
When asked whether 'less immigration' or 'more immigration' would lead 'to a better future 25 years from now,' 61.7 per cent of Canadians said less immigration would be preferable, compared to 34.4 per cent who said more immigration would result in a better Canada.
Don't forget that these views are being expressed in a climate of incredible hostility against any form of "anti-immigrant nativism," to use Ibbitson's disparaging words. This "unorthodox" journalist inhabits an Orwellian establishment thriving in a Newspeak that espouses a code of politically correct "inclusiveness" that condemns deviation with the most censorious labels.

It is an establishment that imposes a standard of tolerance designed to justify the "biological extinction" of traditional Anglo-Quebecois identities in Canada and across the Western world, Germanic, Irish, Swedish, Italian peoples.

Denise Balkissoon's Exclusion Of Whites

The implied exclusion of Whites in the inclusiveness of diversity finds full expression in Balkissoon's Dear White Nationalists: It's Not Unfair, This Is How Equality Works. Charlottesville, this profound woman explains, is about the "undeniable structural truth of global white supremacy," a continuation of the "attempted genocide of Indigenous people across the Americas, concurrent to the enslavement of millions of Africans" and the colonization of the Third World.

The Alt-Right in Charlottesville, Brexit and Trump voters, and "white people" generally have "been raised to believe in their own entitlement" and "taught to fear" that non-Whites will "take-away" countries that don't belong to them. Whites have no right to oppose the taking down of the statue of "the genocidal founder of Halifax, Edward Cornwallis."

There you have it: a truly "inclusive" Canada is one in which Whites accept their "replacement" by non-Whites and the eventual erasure of their history from books and monuments. It is a Canada that leaves no room for "anti-immigrant nativism" and for the expression of dissent by the majority Indigenous Euro-Canadians.
http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2017/08/the-censorious-anti-white-inclusiveness-of-multiculti-canada.html

Nachtengel
Wednesday, October 18th, 2017, 01:58 PM
Canada to Be 80% Non-White “Within 100 Years”

Current immigration policies will turn Vancouver into a 70 percent non-white state within two generations, and all of Canada into an 80 percent nonwhite country within the next 100 years, one of that country’s foremost diplomats has warned.

(New Observer Online)

Writing in the Vancouver Sun, former ambassador to Asia and the Middle East Martin Collacott said that current Canadian immigration policy was “replacing its population” and was a “case of willful ignorance, greed, [and] excess political correctness.”

Quoting University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, Collacott said that “almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be ‘visible minorities’ [politically correct Canadian code for nonwhite] within two generations and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.”

He went on to write:

Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.

Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.

While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population.

Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie.

The cost is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually. Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.

Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however.

We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure.

Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population.

Those who seek to benefit from continued high immigration include leaders of political parties bent on expanding their political base with policies designed to make it easier to come here from abroad and acquire the full benefits of citizenship. Also active are leaders of immigrant organizations eager to expand their support base and influence.

Another important influence has been contributions from developers who want an endless supply of new homebuyers and are major funders of politicians and parties — particularly at the municipal level.
In this regard, it is worth noting that not too long ago, leading politicians in Vancouver on both sides of the political aisle — such as former mayors Art Phillips and Mike Harcourt — were readily prepared to identify high immigration intake as one of the leading causes, if not the main cause, of rising house prices. Now, however, no Canadian politician has the guts or integrity to connect the two.

This is not only because they are so heavily indebted to the real estate industry in one way or another, but also since criticism of mass immigration is treated in many quarters as xenophobic, if not racist, since newcomers are overwhelmingly visible minorities.

While a moderate degree of diversity can make society more vibrant — and my own family is an example of this — it is quite a different matter when it develops to a level where it overwhelms and largely replaces the existing population, particularly when there is no good reason for allowing this to happen.

With current policies, we will have to find room for tens of millions of more newcomers, most of whom will settle in the already densely populated areas of the country where most of the employment opportunities as well as their relatives are located.

We will also have to contend with the fact that many will bring with them values and traditions that may differ in key respects from those of most Canadians, such as gender equality and concern for protection of the environment.

If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.
Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.

And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of willful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.

Are we prepared to do something about it? Sadly, it appears that most Canadians are too supine or short-sighted to do so — at least at this juncture.

Canadians deserve a full and informed public debate on the extent to which immigration policy will determine the future of the country. This should form the basis for a sensible public policy based on the long-term interests of the existing population, rather than those of special interest groups.

Without this we cannot expect our descendants to inherit a country that is anything like the Canada of today.http://whiteresister.com/index.php/10-news/1297-canada-to-be-80-non-white-within-100-years

Nachtengel
Tuesday, November 14th, 2017, 03:22 PM
Canada is Dead

xsVAlEYCkTM

Æmeric
Tuesday, November 14th, 2017, 04:16 PM
What would a Canada of 100 million feel like? More comfortable, better served, better defended (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/what-would-a-canada-of-100-million-feel-like-more-comfortable-better-served-better-defended/article4186906/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&)



"It is time to act. Canada should build its population to a size – at least 100 million – that will allow it to determine its own future, maintain its standard of living against the coming challenges and have a large enough body of talent and revenue to solve its largest problems. All it takes is a sustained and determined increase in immigration, to at least 400,000 permanent immigrants per year."

The Globe and Mail is not a fringe publication but the leading English language newspaper in Canada. It is the voice of the Canadian (and Global) elite.

The main argument for a Canada of 100 million is that it would better a serve a national identity vis-à-vis the United States. But by the time Canada gets up to 100 million the US will likely be populated by 1 billion. But if the US is mostly Hispanic and Africa while Canada is mainly South Asian and Chinese then perhaps Canada will have a distinct identity apart from the United States.

Resist
Saturday, July 7th, 2018, 03:51 PM
To millions of Canadians, open borders, globalism, diversity and multiculturalism are an existential threat to our sovereignty and identity of the Canada that we love and used to fight for. I have become, almost overnight, a demographic conservative; an immigration minimalist and a civilizationalist. I simply do not want my children and grandchildren to become a minority, a small part of a “gorgeous mosaic,” in their own homeland.

Liberals in particular, but all of our established political parties, seemingly hate this country and want to replace the historic Euro-Canadian citizens with foreign nationals. The progressive/left’s position on national immigration policy is centered around the concept that foreigners are inherently better than us. They want them coming nonstop. Don’t worry, they’re all valedictorians and future Nobel Laureates.

We know that Canadians cannot become Indian, Africans, Chinese or Sikh but we are expected to believe that anyone can move to Canada and become Canadian. If it’s not about “race,” as we are being told, then it is imperative that it is about “values.” Nevertheless, those illegal Nigerian eco-migrants that are storming our border, given the backlog, will likely be granted amnesty in a couple of years. Be advised that slavery is as much a part of modern Nigerian culture as female genital mutilation (FGM) is to Somalian culture. That’s vibrancy and enrichment, no question, but does it align with Canadian “values?” It has become unacceptable to demand that immigrants conform to their hosts’ cultures and so we are being made to conform to theirs.

Douglas Murray, in his book, The Strange Death of Europe, believes that Europe (and by extension, Canada) are gripped by a common “mania” and lists the consequences of this mania. They include the lack of national will; the danger of being overtaken by stronger countries who have not succumbed to this mania (can you speak Mandarin yet?); and the transformation of patriotism into shame, guilt or ambivalence.[1] Murray suggests that we have been imbued with an original sin which must lead to moral atonement and that white guilt has become a “moral intoxicant.” High-quality groveling before brown people, even as they snicker at us, is like crack-cocaine to liberals. There is more than a touch of masochism in whites across the West and “we are happy to be self-loathing in an international marketplace of sadists.” (p.176).

As a result, we continue to lose ground as progressives, social justice warriors and cultural Marxists have seized power, pushed radical feminism, teach preschoolers about “white privilege,” sexual re-assignment for children and a race and ethnic war against the founding Euro-Canadian cultures. To our south, separate National Anthems are being played for blacks at NBA games and the anthem is now banned from pep rallies because it is outdated and racially offensive.[2] To use Saul Alinskys’ own words against him, they are “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.” There is no end in sight.

The Slow Cleanse

Demographic and cultural replacement in Canada and throughout the West for that matter, has recently been symbolized by a push to demonize and cleanse evidence of the European history of Canada and North America. The recent removal of the magnificent bronze statue of Sir Edward Cornwallis, Governor of Nova Scotia from 1749-1752, is a recent example. To add insult to injury, after 40 years of handing out the Sir John A. Macdonald Prize, the Canadian Historical Association’s members recently voted 121-11 to rebrand the award as the “CHA Prize” for Best Scholarly Book in Canadian History. The CHA approves of diversity, all right, except of opinion. If you are out in Halifax, tell those Mi'kmaq that I want our statue back.

"I am God's Gift to Humanity! My mandate is to replace Euro-Canadians with superior Africans and Moslems and Asians."
Make no mistake, the left will not stop with Edward Cornwallis and Sir John A. Macdonald. These two great men are part of the historic Canadian Nation, the great Dominion created by Europeans in the New World as an extension of Western Civilization. Euro-Canadians and Canada would not exist if it were not for them. Non-whites, MSM, Antifa and our “elites” understand this and is precisely why they are targeting these statues and symbols. The underlying sentiment is clear: Europeans should never have come to this continent. Once white, Euro-Canadian history is replaced, monuments to a new anti-white, anti-Euro-Canadian history will be erected to honour the new people who consolidate political, cultural and economic power in Canada. Who the hell is Viola Desmond, by the way, and what is she doing on our $10 bill? Our elites want Euro-Canadians too scared to speak up until they believe it’s too late to do anything about it. In business, we call this a hostile takeover.

We’re projected to become a numerical minority in Canada, by 2036, a mere 18 years from now, give or take. In 2050, the oldest Boomers will be 90; the youngest would be 70. Which means that many of them will be dead by the time it happens. So most Boomers think that white demographic decline is simply not their problem. Many of my friends at the local Second Cup in small town Ontario are of this mind. It’s a terrible argument for not doing something to prevent the oncoming catastrophe. The world won’t end when we die and we have a Burkean responsibility to future generations.

“I’ll be dead then, so it is not my problem” is a completely egocentric, self-indulgent, and irresponsible position. Very different standards come into play when we consider the interests of non-whites, the extinction of animal species like the silver fox, white Rhinos or beluga whales, and it goes without saying, long-term environmental trends. Suddenly, the long view and expansive duties to others, even future generations, are a matter of fact.[3] My “friends” don’t fear or oppose our demographic decline as long as it doesn’t affect them personally. Other than the Mandarin Real Estate signs popping up all over, so far it isn’t.

Go ahead and blow your kids’ inheritances. You’ll never live to see the grim, Sharia Compliant governing bodies with Chinese characteristics. A dystopian nightmare where kinship and community will be replaced with alienation; where you can’t read any signs, understand the words, or trust the intentions of the people around you; where, after long lives of mowing your own lawn, old people will die surrounded by thieving and abusive aliens, like H.R. McMaster Sr. (U.S. Army, retired) father of the Trump Administrations former National Security Advisor, who died at the hands of a black nurse who didn’t give a damn about him and abandoned even the most basic standards of human decency.

By the mid-twentieth century, still staggering from the volume of blood-letting in two consecutive world wars, which in hindsight, I consider a thirty-year civil war, white nations began a process of restructuring their institutions and purging “nationalistic” tendencies among their populations. In a reverse spiritual awakening of sorts, European-descended peoples identifying as a group became equated with atrocity – the “holocaust” of Jews, slavery, segregation, colonialism, apartheid, subjugation, exploitation of resources, and denial of the rights of non-white peoples around the world. A new morality emerged to guide Europeans toward absolution. Our very identity became an original sin. Strident positions on race, especially the wickedness of whites, and only whites, effectively became a new religion that entrenched itself in every aspect of society and culture, our schools and governing bodies, business and media, in particular.[4]

As the New Left ideologue, Susan Sontag, put it in 1967:
The white race is the cancer of human history. It is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.

The most important component of our absolution and atonement has been mass immigration into formerly white nations. The momentum for diversity and multiculturalism has become a massive tsunami in the West and Canada, in particular, and my “civilizational anxiety” is compounded by the our low birth rate and the “Six P Elites” that ignore, or worse, sneer at our legitimate concerns: Police, Politicians, Press, Priests, Professors and Prosecutors. [5] The idea of a multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural Canada describes a future that many of us believe means the death of the nation that gives meaning to our lives. Virtually all of our “new” Canadians are from the third world who will vote 70-90% Liberal. They’ll have a lock on the Prime Minister’s office. Main stream media in Canada are co-conspirators and throw a cloak of altruism over their cynical seizure of permanent power.[6] These “elites” don’t care what we think. We’re the lowest common denominator; the counter-Enlightenment.

Let me say this. Rather than be ashamed, I am proud to be white and of European descent. That’s right, I said it! I’m PROUD to be related, in a way that North African and Middle Eastern Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Sikhs and Pakistanis are not, to Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Aristotle, Aeschylus, Cicero, Sir Thomas Moore, da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Darwin, Thoreau, Rembrandt, Hegel, Weber, Mill, Nietzsche, Booby Orr, Gordie Howe and Racine. The National Hockey League and the CN Tower says something to me which it can never say to “them.” You won’t see any hijabs or turbans or Chinese characteristics on those antique lithographs of the voyageurs and coureurs des bois paddling those beautiful birch-bark canoes.

Cash for Kids

Nagicho, a small town in a remote corner of Japan has doubled their fertility rate from 1.4 in 2005 to 2.8 by 2014. When a woman gives birth in Nagicho, she receives a “celebratory gift” of 300,000 Yen, or roughly $3,530.00 US. She also receives baby accessories, subsidized baby-sitting and a car seat. When the child goes to high school, she receives another 90,000 Yen/year and health care is fully paid for.[7] It seems the town was desperate after losing a third of its population since 1955 and fully one-third are now over age 65. Sound familiar? Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is determined to raise the national fertility rate to 1.8 and has earmarked 2 trillion Yen for education and healthcare.

Japan loves its children, unlike Canada where White children are seen as racist.

The Japanese are getting very serious about it. Why can’t we? The question is how do we target the founding cultures, rather than the flood of newly arrived Chinese or Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa, if we don’t have a homeland? Canadians and the West in general, cannot replace our population with other people’s babies. Alternatively, we could weather our demographic crisis by accepting the idea that declining population growth leads to higher per capita income and technological innovation. Either way, we should at least be debating possible solutions to our demographic decline rather than reflexively importing aliens.

It wasn’t that long ago that progressives were concerned with overpopulation. Since third world immigration into Canada has soared the “Watermellons” never talk about population caps or restrictions on reproduction like they so vehemently did in the good ‘ol days. If you are concerned about the quality of life in Canada, why wouldn’t you want a smaller population? Either way, new life-extension technologies are developing exponentially, and the prospect for dramatically longer and healthy lifespans are right on the horizon.[8]

Straight out of Brave New World, Henry Greely, a futurist author and a Stanford University law professor, says the world is moving toward lab-grown babies – and sex may soon be obsolete for procreation. Greely argues that future parents will pick their child from a catalog of “already artificially created embryos” using criteria such as intelligence, athleticism and perhaps even eye color.[9] Farther in the future, it’s plausible that parents will simply be able to buy off-the-shelf embryos out of a “baby catalog” that only requires ingredients from one of the parents – or perhaps neither of them at all. * Baby hatcheries, indeed. The Singularity is Near.

Police States are Emerging in the West; Can Canada be Far Behind?

The London Borough of Camden recently published a report, “Keeping Children and Young People Safe from Radicalization and Extremism: Advice for Parents.” It isn’t Jihadi extremists that are the concern, however, but punishing dissent among Britain’s traditional population. In the UK. all internet activity is monitored. The Home Secretary recently suggested that anyone found to be repeatedly viewing extremist content should be sent to prison for up to 15 years.[10] The report contained advice for parents on how to spot “radicalization,” including a mistrust of mainstream media, belief in conspiracy theories and being angry about government policies. If you have children, there is a threat that they may be taken away from you for harbouring dissident views. Most recently, articles about Stephen Christopher Yaxley (aka Tommy Robinson) protesting on the steps of Leeds Crown Court against the Muslim men being prosecuted for sex grooming gangs, child rape, trafficking and supply of "Class A" drugs to children, were rapidly scrubbed from the internet and "Tommy" thrown in jail for 13 months. Canada is not far behind the once “United” Kingdom and formerly “Great” Britain.

A Police State is one thing, but for a foreshadowing of Canada’s future, look past the UK. and consider South Africa, where, in a majority non-white world, Euro-Africans are powerless, politically oppressed, mercilessly slaughtered and yet still “privileged.” Just 3 months ago, the majority Bantu "Supremacists" South African parliament voted in overwhelming numbers to confiscate the land of white farmers without compensation. The Hutu, who committed the Rwandan Genocide, are from the same Bantu tribe as the Xhosa and Zulu in South Africa who now publicly sing, “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer…”

The motion was brought by radical racialist Julius “Kiddie Amin” Malema of the Marxist EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) party, who has threatened to “cut the throat of whiteness.” Whites, already under siege in a rapidly deteriorating, dangerous country, are staring down the barrel of massive, legally sanctioned theft which could set off even greater conflict.[11] Could this be coming to a suburb near you or your grandchildren?

“White privilege” will give the progressive social justice warriors in Canada, too, a blank cheque and unlimited justification for social engineering and government intervention. Just what we need, bigger, more intrusive and expensive government. Common law, property rights and free speech will be after-thoughts to the goal of overcoming privilege.[12] The cultural Marxists are winning and most Canadians have no idea what is being done to them. They’re struggling to earn a living, pay off mortgages on real-estate driven to exorbitant levels by immigration and Chinese money laundering and get the kids back and forth to hockey, soccer and baseball practice. They still find time, and money however, to create better communities, help with homework, volunteer at local hospitals and schools and pay their taxes.

Any discussion of Police States can’t go by without at least mentioning China. President Xi (for life) has, over the last few years, implemented a “social credit system” and his mouthpiece, the Global Times, was recently bragging about their success in blocking 11 million people from flying and over 4 million from taking high speed trains for crimes like jay-walking, not visiting their parents enough, parking illegally and not being loyal communists. Hou Yunchun, former deputy director of the Development Research Center of the State Council insists that it is necessary for social harmony that “discredited people, become bankrupt.”[13] A high score would earn you lower energy prices, discounts, better matches on dating websites, better schools for your kids and lower interest rates on loans. Are you kidding me? There are echoes of this in the West with Facebook, Google and Twitter but I would rather die fighting then submit to a Canadian “social credit system.” The “authoritarians” in Beijing consider George Orwell’s, “1984” to be an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale of fiction.

In North America, the Trump Administration cannot deliver on their signature campaign promise: to build a wall on their southern border. It’s hard for me to understand how the Americans put up without a wall for so long. The RINO’s, the Chamber of Commerce and of course the Democrats see the future as brown. One seeks cheap, low and high skilled labour, the other, votes, to become the effective governing party, forever. Transferring money and power from whites to browns and blacks. This is a recipe for a dystopian third world hell-hole, not much different than India, Brazil and Africa. The point is, however, that if the Trump Administration can’t get their wall built, and Brexit can’t Brexit how do we, in Canada, expect to establish an immigration moratorium and repeal our Multiculturalism Act? Not very likely. We need contingency plans for a new homeland(s) inside Canada.

I’m an average Canadian and no modern-day Louis Riel but Canadians from the founding cultures need to look beyond a political solution and take heed of the events in South Africa; the UK, Sweden, Calais and throughout Western Europe. If Catalonia, Khalistan, Wakanda, “Farrakhanland,” Scotland, Kurdistan, Quebec, and “New” California, why not a homeland for European-Canadians in South-Western Ontario; the Maritimes; the Prairies, around Quebec City or the interior of beautiful British Columbia? It’s British Columbia, after-all.

A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an “ethny.” According to Dr. Frank Slater, “the special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances . . .” Acquisition and defense of territory, he argues, are therefore an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans. The passionate relationship between a people and its homeland has been constant throughout history. A people can suffer many setbacks, but as long as it retains its own territorial space, it can recover.[14]

In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnocide — precisely what is happening in “multicultural” Canada and throughout the West today. Also worth noting, Salter concludes that there is no evidence of so-called “hybrid vigor.” There is no increase in intelligence, health, life expectancy or creative ability in mixed-race populations. [15]

We can’t be accused of discriminating against people we don’t live with. The massive transfer of wealth and the $35B-$40B fiscal costs of immigration will disappear. We’ll never have to worry about being branded racists again. Taxes will decline, hospitals will become efficient again, and we’ll be able to move on our highways. Our environment will heal. We could banish employment equity plans and we might get lucky and find that many aliens self-deport. Go back home and be free at last from the terrible indignity of white racism. And take your employment equity plans with you! Here’s your hat, Hijab and turban, what’s your hurry?

In my next article I will make the case for why new homeland for the founding Euro-Canadians.

References

[1] Murray, Douglas. “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam.” New York: Bloomsbury, 2017. PP.165-169.

[2] Kirkpatrick, James. “GOP Must Confront America’s Emerging Totalitarian Left-Or Die”, VDare.com. March 5th, 2018.

[3] Johnson, Greg. “Why boomers Should Not Fear White Nationalism.” Counter-Currents 2018 Fundraiser.

[4] Harman, Gwoobus, “The Listing Vessel of the Right.” Counter Currents.com. March 28,2018

[5] Pipes, Daniel. “Accepting Europe’s Anti-Immigration Parties.” Washington Times. November 30, 2017

[6] Buchanan, Patrick J. “Macron, the Last Multilateralist Can’t Stop the Surge of Nationalism.” VDARE.com. April 28th, 2018

[7] Asia. “A Small Town in Japan Doubles its Fertility Rate. Cash for Kids.” The Economist. Jan. 9th, 2018

[8] Kirkey, Sharon. “Do You Really Want to Live Forever(ish)?” The National Post. April 5th, 2018.

[9] Daniels, Kit. “END OF SEX? Futurist Says Lab-Grown Babies In 20 TO 40 Years.” Baby hatcheries predicted in 1932 novel Brave New World. Infowars.com. April 30, 2018.

[10] Blickley, Alan. “Tip of the Iceberg-Britain’s Police State Operates Mostly Out of Sight.” VDare.com. March 24th, 2018.

[11] Reydel, Koos. “Why South Africa Matters.” American Renaissance, March 28, 2018.

[12] Collins, Hubert. “Who is Gregory Hood?” American Renaissance, February 23, 2-118

[13] Martel, Frances. “China Celebrates Blocking over 11 Million People from Flights.” Breitbart.com. May 21st, 2018.

[14] Salter, Frank. “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?” Population and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140)

[15] Ibid.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, July 7th, 2018, 04:41 PM
Quebec is the noble savage on the pedestal that excuses all of this crap. Make English official and abolish French. Let the Scots rule Canada in their own right, just as Angles in America. The Franco-Scottish alliance in Canada to thwart America is countered by the Germanic conglomeration of English, Dutch and Swedish. Canada's model looks to tyrants like the Jacobites and Bourbons, whereas America's model holds to Cromwell, William III and Gustav II Adolf. Canada is naturally going to be multicultural, rather than have one metaethnic heritage.

AFAIK, the member who started this thread is probably:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden

Blod og Jord
Friday, October 19th, 2018, 11:42 PM
Canada takes even more immigrants relative to its population than the U.S. but its elite has long been as complacently confident that the immigration issue could be kept out of politics as the U.S. elite was before Trump. (Canada has the added advantage of shockingly repressive Hate Speech laws, although the U.S. elite and the Tech Totalitarians are working on that).

But two recent events have disturbed that complacency: Maxime Bernier, a federal Member of Parliament and prominent former candidate for the federal Conservative Party leadership, began an extremely aggressive Trump-type Twitter campaign denouncing multiculturalism and the diversity cult and has used it to launch a new federal party. And in the run-up to the October 1 Quebec provincial election, François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec has cracked Canada’s elite consensus by proposing a (very modest) 20% decrease in immigration. (See "Quebec election: No place to go for anglophones")

Nor is it surprising that this dissent has begun in the French-speaking province of Quebec: shockingly, current trends suggest that the Québécois de souche (Old Stock Quebecers, the people whose ancestors were the French who settled in Canada before 1760) will soon become a minority in their own homeland.

Everyone who has visited Quebec knows there is something inherently special about it: the home of the French Canadians stands apart in this huge, English-speaking continent. Perhaps the most settled community in North America, the Quebecois resisted all attempts to assimilate them and adopted a defensive nationalism that allowed them to survive despite the hostile environment.

Or maybe not. After two hundred years of continuous struggle which left the Quebecois nation in effective control of their state (the Canadian province of Quebec), the Québécois felt they had won and could embrace modernity and liberalism without any risk. So, after 1960, they let their guard down in the so-called Quiet Revolution.

Old identity markers like religion and tradition were abandoned and the Quebecois did not protest when Canada’s federal government threw the doors of immigration open wide: (Supposedly) Quebecois could safely open themselves to the liberal modern world, and everything that went along with it.

They were wrong. What the British Empire dreamt of—replacing the Québécois people—is finally happening, without a whisper of protest and even with the complicity of the pseudo-nationalists from the Parti Québécois who prefer Leftist Political Correctness (like the so-called Scottish Nationalists) to defending their own people.

An independent report presented last year by Grégoire Bergeron (Immigration de masse au Québec : Effet sur le poids démographique des Canadiens-français, 2017) demonstrates that the days of the French Canadians are numbered in Quebec. In less than 20 years, 2035 to be more precise, the Québécois de souche will be a minority on their own soil. After disappearing from the other Canadian provinces mostly due to assimilation into the English-speaking majority, the founders of Canada will simply become one minority among others in one province.

According to Bergeron’s report, the French Canadians—not to be confused with Canadians speaking French (such as Muslim immigrants from North African former colonies of France) —accounted for 79% of Quebec’s population in 1971. With a lower fertility rate, mass immigration and breeding with immigrants, they fell to 64% in 2014 and will become less than 50% in 2035 and they will only account for 35% of the births.

The Great Replacement, a term coined by the French novelist Renaud Camus, is not an abstract concept. It is a reality that simply cannot be denied or tossed away as a far-Right conspiracy theory. It is happening, and it is happening fast.

Every year the equivalent of one percent of the French-Canadian population enters Quebec. If the immigration rates are calculated based on the whole population, which is increasing mostly due to immigration, it becomes exponential in relationship to the French-Canadian population which is stable.

But the English-speaking Protestants who entered the province after 1760, some of them American Loyalists, must not rejoice. Their fate is similar: their number is declining as well in Quebec. French and English share the same fate: a dispossession of their land.

The study also offers several key findings. First, the myth of immigration helping to counter an aging population is debunked once again (there are unfortunately many people who still think of immigration as a remedy to this problem); the author suggests natalist policies. But for me as a Quebecois, incremental policies will unfortunately not do. What is necessary is a real cultural and metapolitical work to place the survival of our people and large families, or at least families, back in the center of mainstream culture.

Another myth debunked by Bergeron: the fashionable revisionist narrative about the origins of the Quebecois–that their ancestors were both French and Natives like the Métis of the West. The results show something else: 95% of Quebecois de Souche’s ancestors came from France; 2% came from the British Isles but assimilated into the French-speaking community and 1.35% were Natives. Even today, the rate of unions outside the ethnic group is small. If there were no such unions, Quebecers would become a minority by 2037 rather than 2035. Non-traditional immigration is what is doing the damage.

With French Canadians becoming a minority, the very idea of Quebec’s independence will become obsolete. Why would the province of Quebec separate if the people inhabiting it are not so different from the rest of the country? Just like in the other provinces, the population will be composed of various minorities. The only differentiating factor will be the language: a majority will still speak French.

Non-traditional immigrants and their descendants have always opposed separatism. We can assume that an independence referendum will never be winnable if Quebecois de souche are a minority.

The Parti Québécois, founded in 1968 to advance the sovereignty of Quebec, might be expected to take heed. But it has chosen to adopt the Political Correctness creed rather than defend the first point of its program. It embraces mass immigration and wishes a more diverse Quebec. This has created an opportunity for the Coalition Avenir Québec, which is also a more centrist party. By refusing to accept its role of defender of the French Canadians, the Parti Québécois is committing a slow suicide, a tendency proven by recent polls.

Despite the fact that there is still no real political vehicle like France’s Front National, the reaction to this Great Replacement in Quebec is spreading through metapolitical and parapolitical organizations. Over the last few years, many groups critical of mass immigration or Islam have arisen and have joined the Fédération des Québécois de souche which was until recently the only organization openly demanding the end of mass immigration.

Groups like La Meute, which mostly focuses on the rise of Islam, are popping up and gaining wider support. La Meute has more than 40 000 members, an extremely high number for a political organization in Quebec. It held mass demonstrations in Quebec City last year. Other groups, like Storm Alliance, have held protests at the border to denounce illegal immigration, which has become a major issue since Trump’s election. Some groups like Atalante are bringing their message to the street level with demonstrations and different stunts like their #Remigration campaign. Others like Horizon Québec Actuel, headed by Alexandre Cormier-Denis, wish to eventually run in elections. In fact, Cormier-Denis tried to defeat the far-left golden boy Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois in a by-election in Montreal. The bid was unsuccessful, but it is the kind of initiative that will become more and more common in the future.

Conferences, lectures, gatherings and demonstrations have now become frequent and are often attracting hundreds of people, something that was unthinkable only a few years ago. Will this new wave of resistance be enough to reverse the trend?

Hard to say. Yes, the nationalist camp can boast of minor victories, like the referendum in Saint-Apollinaire where a Muslim cemetery project was refused by the inhabitants, but in the long term, it will take bigger victories to ensure we do not become the minority that Grégoire Bergeron has predicted. https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2018/10/the-great-replacement-looms-for-old-stock-canadians.html