The Current State of Canadian Immigration
We hear about the Migrant Crisis in Europe, we hear about incidents like the New Years Sexual Assaults in Cologne, we hear about the issues associated with uncontrolled mass-immigration (which has been, in many cases, regarded as a failure by those who initially advocated for multicultural policies), but despite this, there are few media outlets that we can really rely on for information on immigration in this day and age.
With that being said, it is noteworthy that, despite the agenda at large, Global News has been reporting on 50 million dollars being spent on Asylum seekers this year, an increasing backlog of deportees, Haitians at the border with child pornography (the CBSA wouldn’t confirm number of asylum seekers found in possession of child pornography when crossing into Quebec, stating that only that less than 1% are being detained for it), and they’ve reported on ISIS fighters returning to Canada (where they will retain their citizenship despite being terrorists).
CBC, on the other hand, has also reported that the Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen claims that Canada will admit over 1 million migrants over the next 3 years, and CBC also covered a recent affair where “The Government of Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations [had] agreed to launch a joint initiative aimed at increasing private sponsorship of refugees around the world…”.
As if all of this isn’t enough, Free Bird Media and Faith Goldy have recently been covering the excessively lenient nature of the Canadian border and the extent to which thousands of Haitian asylum seekers are simply welcomed at the border with no background checks whatsoever. The state of immigration seems to be causing so much disruption that there were protests at the Canadian borders in Quebec just this past weekend, protests that were met with violent Antifa members, who attacked Ms. Goldy two weeks ago during a previous visit covering the state of the border.
This is the current state of Canadian immigration, whether we look to major news outlets that typically shy away from the risk of a Migrant Crisis in Canada or whether we look to independent media outlets that are prepared to confront these matters in a forthright manner without trying to win a popularity contest. The question is, how did we get here?
How did we create the society that can afford to bring these costs upon itself?
Why are we taking these costs upon ourselves?
And should we be taking them upon ourselves?
The irony of the first question is that, in order to create a society that could sustain minorities like we have, this required the preservation of the current majority, as was advocated for by Sir John A. MacDonald, who claimed, in a House of Commons Debates in 1885, that:
“The truth is that all natural history, all ethnology, shows that, while the crosses of the Aryan Races are successful––while a mixture of those races which are known or believed to spring from common origin is more or less successful––they will amalgamate. If you look around the world you will see that the aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics.”
all the way to William Lyon Mackenzie King, who echoed this sentiment before the House of Commons in 1957 by stating that:
“The people of Canada do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.”
In order to answer the second question, we must understand how we came to where we are in order to understand why things are the way they are.
Prior to the 20th Century, with the exception of the Chinese (who are notably hard-working), Canada encouraged immigrants from Europe with an open doors policy. This created some contention with Chinese immigrants, contention which MacDonald himself explicitly addressed, by claiming “We are in the course of progress; tis country is going on and developing, and we will have plenty of labor for our own kindred races, without introducing this element of a mongrel race to disturb the labor market, and certainly we ought not allow them to share the government of the country”.
Following this, from 1903 to 1913, Canada experienced massive waves of European immigration, only to reach a point where the immigration policy explicitly excluded Communists and Turks (in addition to a few other groups) in 1919. In 1946, Canada opened its doors to the Chinese again, only to close them again to Non-European and Non-American immigrants in 1952.
The legacy of Canadian immigration policy post-Mackenzie King has largely been that of a tragedy. It is true that Louis St. Laurent, who has often been described as a “strong nationalist” and who was a self avowed anti-communist, followed in Mackenzie-King’s footsteps, helping to create an era of Canadian Liberals who were characterized by economic nationalism and industrial corporatism. However, it was those who came after St. Laurent (particularly the progressive “conservatives”) who have been nothing but insidious.
We shouldn’t forget that Harper is but one of many symptoms of the Progressive Conservative ideology that emerged with Prime Ministers like John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney, and Lester B. Pearson.
As a point of digression, and as an answer to the question of whether we should take the costs of immigration upon ourselves, we should also note that according to the Diversity Research done by Frank Salter (an Australian academic and researcher at the former Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology) and according to a Cornell University study called “Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence”, it has been noted that there is a need to maintain ethnic separation and ethnic homogeneity in order to create social stability.
Salter concluded that:
“More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war or ‘Fratricides’, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.”
Whereas the study done by Cornell concluded that:
“analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups”.
It should also be noted that if you look at the best performing countries in the world, in terms of just about every performative indicator (such as crime rate, IQ, and various economic indicators), these tend to be homogeneous countries from the Northern Hemisphere (particularly Far-Eastern Asian and White European or Eurasian countries).
Nevertheless, it was under Progressive Conservatives like Diefenbaker that we moved away from a policy of ethnic homogeneity to a “points system”, only to entrench the rights of foreigners in the adoption of the Bill of Rights; and it was under Progressive Liberals like Pierre Elliot Trudeau that we adopted radical immigration policy and signed the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, only to entrench the rights of foreigners in the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After all, it was under Pierre Elliot Trudeau that eventually, in 1976, 1978, and 1988, we adopted immigration policies that were explicitly meant to encourage multiculturalism (such as the Multicultural Act of ’88), mass immigration (such as the immigration policies of ’76, and ’78), and ultimately, we adopted an immigration policy that explicitly went against what was required to create a society that could afford to let immigrants in to begin with.
Similar to the American Hart–Celler Act of 1965, these policies were not voted for by the majority and the majority was not informed of what the consequences of these policies would be like. The majority did not expect that their culture would be in jeopardy, that crime would increase in cities, that their labor market would be over-saturated, that wage growth would stagnate as costs of living go up, and the majority didn’t expect that immigrant minorities would use their welfare while they worked with increasing taxes.
Now, the National Conservatives have been usurped by Progressive Conservatives like Harper, who claim they could have done something, but chose not to, and the Strong Liberals have been usurped by Progressive Liberals like Trudeau, who would prefer to play dress up and pretend he is a foreigner. And now both Progressive Conservatives and Liberals compete to increase immigration in order to win the ethnic vote while whites decline below 75% of the population at an increasing rate (especially given our decreasing birth rates in contrast with that of other ethnic minorities).
* If you would like to access premium content and videos here at The Red Ensign, consider becoming a subscriber: www.redensign.ca/subscribe. Only monthly subscribers get media access to interviews and behind-the-scenes engagements of the Canadian Nationalist Party.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are those of the author exclusively. They do not represent the positions of the Canadian Nationalist Party, their employees or of other organizations with which they are or have been affiliated. This site is provided for informational purposes only. Links to third party websites are provided for the convenience of users, and do not constitute an endorsement of their contents or a representation as to their accuracy.
In many ways, the nature of the events that have unfolded within our nation reflect broader trends in the...