Talk:Immigration to Canada

Needs Historic Context

Added a historical context of Western Historical Immigration and the huge 'last best west' immigration boom. Also around the same time frame was the impact of the head tax, which was written about extensively in another article, but referenced and included as a sub topic here..Julia 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)SriMesh

Julia, I think we should start a new article entitled History of immigration to Canada. We could put the entire history section in there as it exists so far. The reason is that history section is good, but is now getting too long proportionally for this article, particularly when it is fully expanded with sections for the martimes, Quebec, and Ontario. We can then put a shorter summary here in the main immigration article. (p.s., please don't edit the old peer review as it is now archived). Deet 00:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to put immigration in its historic context; by historical standards immigration to Canada today is rather low and the percentage of the population who are themselves either immigrants or children of immigrants is far lower than in, say, 1913. --Ggbroad 00:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, obviously all the countries in the Americas would have had large percentage increases in population as they were settled at points in the distant past, but if you think that needs pointing out I think it would fit best in the history section. Deet 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition the article has a very, very clear anti-immigration bias. NPOV would improve it.--Ggbroad 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Example would be helpful. Deet 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now: it's perfectly obvious that a good deal of the article has been written in such a manner so as to argue - and indeed persuade others - that (recent) immigration has had a negative impact on Canadian life.--Ggbroad 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the economic stats, such as the Stats Can employment numbers, are dismal. I tried to find credible economic studies to show the economic benefits of immigration but couldn't find any, so I made an appeal to Canadian Wikipedians to help here (scroll to the right) and did not receive any responses. So yes, for now, I've just given in to the possibility that there is not much evidence of the economic benefit of immigration to Canada. I realize that does not match the rhetoric we hear in Canada, but maybe that is the reality. And if that's the case, let's not white-wash it for the sake of political correctness. Either that or please help me identify some real evidence to the contrary. Deet 23:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's see what we can find. Having said that, the economics of immigration is only one factor in the overall question of whether or not immigration is socially beneficial. I for one like the fact that my local neighborhood has Thai, Japanese, Ethiopian, Mexican, Italian, and Chinese restaurants, for example. --Ggbroad 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the labour market need to establish ethnic restaurants in your neighbourhood has already been filled. I can see adding a small note related to your point into this article, but there are a few articles that also address the benefits of diversity: Canadian identity, Multiculturalism (Canadian section), Culture of Canada, and even Canada, etc. Deet 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was being a bit glib. My point is that the benefits or problems associated with immigration can't simply be reduced to economic terms; a society is, after all, much more than an economic base. Unless you're a Marxist. --Ggbroad 03:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This claim: "From the very beginning of the country in 1867 up until 1947, immigration was largely matter of British control, as all citizens of Canada were also British subjects" is incorrect. The BNA act gave jurisdiction over immigration to federal and provincial governments, but the government left most of the responsibility for immigration to the private sector in practice until 1896. --Ggbroad 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please fix the section, and also check the History of Canadian nationality law article to correct it also if needed. Deet 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is in need of an overhaul. Canada has had laws pertaining to immigration in place since 1869. Further, there is no mention of the fact that 20% of the population was not born in Canada, that is noteworthy but mention is only made of visible minorities. There was no Canadian Citizenship prior to 1921, and the monarchy is most certainly both a British and Canadian institution after the passage of the Statute of Westminster. This is just what comes to mind.

"The level of immigration was increased in the 1990's by the then governing Liberal Party of Canada who in 1993 set a target of an annual 1% per capita immigration rate. While the actual immigration rate subsequently tracked lower than that target, the Liberals committed to raising actual immigration levels further in 2005."

This isn't true and makes the Liberals under Chretien appear very pro-immigrant when in actuality there is little to warrant this. Immigration peaked under Kim Campbell in 1993 at 255 819. In 1994 immigration decreased to 223 759, Chretien's first year in office and has not returned to 1993 levels. Under Chretien, family class immigration was reduced and a Right of Landing Fee was introduced for immigrants and controversily refugees. Chretien's administration marked slightly more restrictionist immigration approach but this was caused by financial constraints more than any genuine anti-immigrant sentiment. For the numbers of immigrants coming to Canada- see “Multicultural Canada: An Overview” -http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/multi/assets/pdfs/multidem_e.PDF For the Right of Landing Fee- see http://www.web.net/~ccr/headtax2.htm

Canadians of Convenience

The caption on the image from "Come to Stay" in the history section should not contain a reference to "Canadians of Convenience." I would argue that it is out of context, and it makes no sense to draw a parallel between the history of Canadian immigration and so-called "Canadians of Convenience." Furthermore, I don't think its fair to call this a debate. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, the term was coined by a few right-wing journalists in Canada, but this is not something which is in the mainstream. Kesahun 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Immigration and Crime

I'm not sure I understand why this is even a subtopic. Is it really relevant to the topic of immigration? I see it as challenging the neutrality of the article. It's as if listing crime as essential to the discussion of immigration we are inherently saying that immigration is linked to crime. This is problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.0.157 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, that's exactly what I came in to say. It's completely off topic, and the very last sentence explicitly states that no studies have been done and so no conclusions can be made. If no conclusions can be made, why has this been included? I'm going to jump in and delete it and hope for the best. If you think this is an important issue, start a new article about it. --Bakarocket 03:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also deleted economic impact, another irrelevant and ephemeral subject. Both are subjects that, if they could be better sources, would deserve their own articles. When read in the context of an article on immigration, they seem very weasel-like, whereas on their own they would not. -- Bakarocket 03:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you even reading what you are deleting? There is already a main article on Economic impact of immigration to Canada. Deet 18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

Added a link to a resource for immigrant brides.