[Godstud]

Cases like this, where France banned the Burkinis for a while, are causing a rift, and making it harder for immigrants to integrate, because they are being made to feel unwelcome. How does that make you want to be more French, German Canadian, etc., if the people you are trying to live with, are trying to punish you for your beliefs?

This is partly why Canada doesn't have the problems France does...



When people are made to feel welcome to a country, you'd be surprised on the effect that has on their opinion of that country.

Syrian refugees in Calgary help Fort McMurray evacuees
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/syrian-ref ... -1.2890294

http://globalnews.ca/news/2684980/i-kno ... -evacuees/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -1.3592043

[Political Interest]

Canada's multicultural experiment only works because you have a country with a very small population compared to landmass which is generally very middle class and wealthy.

It also probably has something to do with the Canadian approach to life which would make integration of immigrants easier. I imagine Canadians to be less stiff and uptight than English or French people.

I am not convinced that it is as stable as it appears, however.

The United States and Australia have shown us that even in the new world multicultural societies take tremendous effort.

But as others have rightly pointed out, mass immigration destroyed the native peoples of Canada. It was the same in New Zealand and Australia.

[Godstud]

Canada's multicultural experiment only works because you have a country with a very small population compared to landmass which is generally very middle class and wealthy.

Newsflash! Canadians do not live in most of that landmass. Edmonton, Albert is the northernmost largish city.

As for the wealth, thing. That's largely nonsense. Our poverty rate is below 10% but we are not wealthy. Middle class like most of America is middle class, middle class?

I am not convinced that it is as stable as it appears, however.

The United States and Australia have shown us that even in the new world multicultural societies take tremendous effort.

You'd be wrong. It is stable. The difference between the US, Australia and Canada are larger than people assume.

America's always been "The Melting Pot", where people are assumed to be melting into Americans, but they only became foreign communities IN America. eg. Little Italy, Chinatown, etc. They do assume the American mantle, but they never entirely integrate, despite America wanting everyone to integrate.

I am not sure about Australia's problems, but it seems they're a lot more like the US, than Canada is.

Big difference. When people come to Canada, as immigrants, we are accepting them as new Canadians, not as new Syrians, Italian, Muslims, etc.

But as others have rightly pointed out, mass immigration destroyed the native peoples of Canada.

That's actually not true. Colonialism/Imperialism, both by the British and then Canadians, caused the problems, not immigration. German immigrants from Europe weren't displacing aboriginal peoples. Those problems occurred long before most European Canadians had emigrated to Canada.

What do you mean by MASS immigration, too? Canada only has a population of 33 million people. Sure Canada only had a population around 3 million in 1867, but it hasn't exactly exploded.

[Political Interest]

Newsflash! Canadians do not live in most of that landmass. Edmonton, Albert is the northernmost largish city.

Well of course not. In any country you have concentrations in urban areas. However you can still expand and houses in Canada are far bigger and cheaper than anywhere in the UK.

As for the wealth, thing. That's largely nonsense. Our poverty rate is below 10% but we are not wealthy. Middle class like most of America is middle class, middle class?

Then why is Canada world renowned as being one of the best places to live alongside Australia and New Zealand? Somewhere like the UK is not regarded as a top destination for quality of life.

You'd be wrong. It is stable. The difference between the US, Australia and Canada are larger than people assume.

America's always been "The Melting Pot", where people are assumed to be melting into Americans, but they only became foreign communities IN America. eg. Little Italy, Chinatown, etc. They do assume the American mantle, but they never entirely integrate, despite America wanting everyone to integrate.

I am not sure about Australia's problems, but it seems they're a lot more like the US, than Canada is.

So what is the secret to such success?

Big difference. When people come to Canada, as immigrants, we are accepting them as new Canadians, not as new Syrians, Italian, Muslims, etc.

Admittedly Canada's civic identity is very strong. How have you managed to get migrants to embrace it so readily?

That's actually not true. Colonialism/Imperialism, both by the British and then Canadians, caused the problems, not immigration. German immigrants from Europe weren't displacing aboriginal peoples. Those problems occurred long before most European Canadians had emigrated to Canada.

What do you mean by MASS immigration, too? Canada only has a population of 33 million people. Sure Canada only had a population around 3 million in 1867, but it hasn't exactly exploded.

Mass immigration is the mass settlement of a population into a new land. It can happen within the context of colonialism or through invitation by the host government. Canada experienced mass immigration from the British Isles and France.

[Rugoz]

This is partly why Canada doesn't have the problems France does...

Yawn, what simplistic nonsense.

France didn't hand pick its Muslims like Canada did, it has a lot more of them and they're mostly from North Africa.

France is also a former colonial power and relevant military power today.

Last but not least Canada's economy is arguably better at providing jobs, especially for the young.

[Godstud]

Admittedly Canada's civic identity is very strong. How have you managed to get migrants to embrace it so readily?

I think it comes from the acceptance that most Canadians ARE immigrants. I know very few Canadians whose families have been here longer than their grandparents, unless you count aboriginal peoples.

Maybe it is also a sort of more laid-back situation. It also depends on the people we are allowing to immigrate here.

A nice example/anecdote... There is a large Hindu and Sikh population near Vancouver in the small city of Abbotsford(I lived there 10 years). They had some problems with Sikhs/Hindus coming from India/Pakistan, and causing problems(by carrying over problems from their home countries). The Sikh and Hindu leaders got together, determined who were the trouble makers were, and sent them home. They told them, in no unreasonable terms, that Canada was not the place to carry over the hate and problems.

Now, every year when the Sikhs and Hindus have celebrations in their communities, the Sikhs provide security for the Hindus, and vice versa, to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Do you mean that sort of civic identity?

You don't have to like the truth, Rugoz, but there it is. You won't hear me arguing that Canada does not have a vastly better immigration system than France, but that's always been France's choice. Opening border to colonies was also a choice France made.

France is no more a relevant military power than anyone else, and that means diddly, and squat, in today's world politics. Canada swings well above its weight in world political influence.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Political Interest,

Colonialism and mass immigration are two distinct and separate things.

[Political Interest]

Colonialism and mass immigration are two distinct and separate things.

How so?

I disagree with you.

Colonialism has often employed mass immigration as a tool. All imperial powers, colonial or not, have used mass settlement from their centres to the frontiers as a means of securing control of the colonies.

Australia and New Zealand were colonies of the United Kingdom. British and Irish settlers were allowed to migrate en masse to these two colonies. Their migrations formed the basis for the eventual demographic shift that made the natives majorities in their own countries.

Then there is mass immigration that takes place outside a colonial setting. This is when a government, usually in an industrial country, invites migrants to fill manual labour roles or do work that is unpopular.

It does not matter in which context mass immigration happens, the effect on demography is the same.

[Pants-of-dog]

How so?

I disagree with you.

Colonialism has often employed mass immigration as a tool. All imperial powers, colonial or not, have used mass settlement from their centres to the frontiers as a means of securing control of the colonies.

Australia and New Zealand were colonies of the United Kingdom. British and Irish settlers were allowed to migrate en masse to these two colonies. Their migrations formed the basis for the eventual demographic shift that made the natives majorities in their own countries.

Then there is mass immigration that takes place outside a colonial setting. This is when a government, usually in an industrial country, invites migrants to fill manual labour roles or do work that is unpopular.

It does not matter in which context mass immigration happens, the effect on demography is the same.

You can have colonialism without mass migration.

The colonial relationship between Canada and Inuit people, for example, cannot have used mass settlement in traditional Inuit territories because such mass settlement never occurred. So, while some migration is necessary for colonialism, mass migration is not.

But do not take my word for it. Let us look at the definition of colonialism:

"Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Definitions

Now, please note that the defintion focuses on the relationship between the colonised nation and the colonising nation rather than on the number of migrants.

Now, this relationship has existed in situations without mass settlement (e.g. the Inuit) and mass migration has also existed without such colonialism (e.g. the high number of Indian immigrants to Canada).

So, while mass migration is a tool often used in colonialism, as you pointed out, colonialism and mass migration are two different things.

And one of the ways in which they differ is the impact they have on the nation receiving migrants. Colonialism, by definition, creates negative impacts on the host nation. Mass migration does not. Using Canada as an example again, the indigenous people here have suffered from mass migration because it was a tool for colonialism. Canada, in the other hand, has benefited from mass migration because it strengthens Canada's colonial relationship with the indigenous people living there.

So not only are colonialism and mass immigration two different things, but there can also be different effects on demography because of mass immigration.

[Political Interest]

You can have colonialism without mass migration.

Yes.

The colonial relationship between Canada and Inuit people, for example, cannot have used mass settlement in traditional Inuit territories because such mass settlement never occurred. So, while some migration is necessary for colonialism, mass migration is not.

You cannot deny that the reason why the native peoples of Canada are an ethnic minority is because Europeans settled en masse under the auspices of a colonial administration. It is not surprising that the Inuit never experienced mass immigration when they were in the far north. Such immigration would not have been possible. That is like saying Siberia never experienced mass Russian settlement just because the Chukchi did not experience it.

But do not take my word for it. Let us look at the definition of colonialism:

"Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Definitions

Now, please note that the defintion focuses on the relationship between the colonised nation and the colonising nation rather than on the number of migrants.

Now, this relationship has existed in situations without mass settlement (e.g. the Inuit) and mass migration has also existed without such colonialism (e.g. the high number of Indian immigrants to Canada).

So, while mass migration is a tool often used in colonialism, as you pointed out, colonialism and mass migration are two different things.

In what way are they different? It does not matter whether or not the mass immigration takes place in a colonial context. The fact remains that there is still a massive demographic shift whenever a large group of outsiders settle in a new land.

And one of the ways in which they differ is the impact they have on the nation receiving migrants. Colonialism, by definition, creates negative impacts on the host nation. Mass migration does not. Using Canada as an example again, the indigenous people here have suffered from mass migration because it was a tool for colonialism. Canada, in the other hand, has benefited from mass migration because it strengthens Canada's colonial relationship with the indigenous people living there.

In what way did mass migration (facilitated by colonialism) not have a negative effect on the native peoples of North America?

European Canadians have benefited from mass migration because they are part of that very phenomenon.

So not only are colonialism and mass immigration two different things, but there can also be different effects on demography because of mass immigration.

I am sorry I do not understand you.

Mass immigration is the same regardless of context. It will create a demographic shift. Who benefits and who doesn't is an entirely different discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

Amd you can have mass migration without colonialism.

You cannot deny that the reason why the native peoples of Canada are an ethnic minority is because Europeans settled en masse under the auspices of a colonial administration. It is not surprising that the Inuit never experienced mass immigration when they were in the far north. Such immigration would not have been possible. That is like saying Siberia never experienced mass Russian settlement just because the Chukchi did not experience it.

As you said and I agreed, mass migration can be used as a tool by colonialists.

In what way are they different? It does not matter whether or not the mass immigration takes place in a colonial context. The fact remains that there is still a massive demographic shift whenever a large group of outsiders settle in a new land.

As I already explained, colonialism is an unequal relationship between two nations. It is not necessarily a significant demographic shift. Mass migration is such a shift.

In what way did mass migration (facilitated by colonialism) not have a negative effect on the native peoples of North America?

As I said, colonialism has a negative impact, and the colonial relationship between the Crown and indigenous people is what causes the negative impacts, not mass migration.

European Canadians have benefited from mass migration because they are part of that very phenomenon.

Yes, European Canadians benefit from colonialism.

I am sorry I do not understand you.

Mass immigration is the same regardless of context. It will create a demographic shift. Who benefits and who doesn't is an entirely different discussion.

As long as we agree that colonialism does not necessarily create demographic shifts. And that demographic shifts can have different impacts.

[noemon]

[Atlantis]

Colonialism and mass immigration are two distinct and separate things.

No, they are not. Globalization is directly related to British colonialism and the subsequent US hegemony.

So far, the Anglosphere has been the principal profiteer from colonialism and globalization. Now that others are claiming their fair share, the Anglos are pulling up the drawbridge. Neither the UK nor the US can survive without global trade. Isolationist policies will be your undoing.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, they are not.

Yes, they are.

Globalization is directly related to British colonialism and the subsequent US hegemony.

So far, the Anglosphere has been the principal profiteer from colonialism and globalization. Now that others are claiming their fair share, the Anglos are pulling up the drawbridge. Neither the UK nor the US can survive without global trade. Isolationist policies will be your undoing.

None of this contradicts the claim that colonialism and mass immigration are two separate things.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Of course they are two separate things but they share many of the same problems and pitfalls especially when it comes to the clash of cultures.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Then there is mass immigration that takes place outside a colonial setting. This is when a government, usually in an industrial country, invites migrants to fill manual labour roles or do work that is unpopular.

Capitalists are usually not powerful enough by themselves to facilitate this. You need a broad alliance to get mass immigration and in industrialised countries it is the joint force of capitalists and humanitarians, usually of the left liberal variety, that makes it happen. For instance, why would capitalists particularly care about family reunion? The case for this type of immigration, which makes up a large portion of the overall numbers, is based on an humanitarian argument, which at this point in time seems impossible to challenge. The same goes for what types of selection are acceptable. The humanitarian argument is that we owe every individual on the planet an opportunity to try to immigrate - although the "equal opportunity" doesn't exist in practice and is entirely abstract - and so discrimination based on anything but qualification/education is unthinkable.

As an example, Japan lacks the western type of humanitarians and so its capitalists are relatively powerless.

[Rugoz]

You don't have to like the truth, Rugoz, but there it is. You won't hear me arguing that Canada does not have a vastly better immigration system than France, but that's always been France's choice. Opening border to colonies was also a choice France made.

Canada is lucky to be far away from the poor and conflict-ridden regions of this planet.

[Godstud]

As is France.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course they are two separate things but they share many of the same problems and pitfalls especially when it comes to the clash of cultures.

No, they do not share problems and pitfalls.

People keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.

---------------

In France, about 11% of the population are immigrants.

In Canada, it is about 20%.

If Canada can have almost twice as many immigrants and not have national debates about swimwear, then the reason for why the French decided to discuss this non-issue is not about mass immigration.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

When people are made to feel welcome to a country, you'd be surprised on the effect that has on their opinion of that country.

Canada makes refugees feel welcome? I'm asking because of the images you posted.

The government’s model in all this has been Australia, says Jennifer Hyndman, director of the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University in Toronto.

After taking in boats bearing thousands of people, the Australians tightened their borders, and now make it nearly impossible to seek asylum by water. Their “Pacific solution” has them stopping boats and diverting them to islands with detention centres.

Canada followed suit in 2012 with Bill C-31, which made detention mandatory for “irregular” arrivals. As well, it has taken steps to stop potential asylum seekers from even setting sail. The Globe reported in 2010 that Ward Elcock, former head of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, has been sent to Southeast Asia as a special envoy to prevent migrant smuggling.

Any “irregulars” who get this far now wait longer to receive permanent-resident status or to have their cases reviewed if their applications are denied, says Toronto immigration lawyer Micheal Crane. As well, health benefits for newcomers are being restricted, and work permits being delayed, “making it difficult for people to get off the dole,” he explains. “That’s basically a shame. It’s inescapable that the government is doing that to discourage what it views as bogus refugee claimants.”

You won't hear me arguing that Canada does not have a vastly better immigration system than France, but that's always been France's choice. Opening border to colonies was also a choice France made.

So it's not all about making people feel welcome after all?

The problem with self-praising Canadians - and Australians and Kiwis for that matter - is that they'd love to think that immigration to their countries has been a success because they are such lovely and accepting people, when in reality their strictness and lack of acceptance is quite likely what makes it work much better.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Canada can have almost twice as many immigrants and not have national debates about swimwear, then the reason for why the French decided to discuss this non-issue is not about mass immigration.

It's an expression of impotence. The authorities want to give the impression that they do something about radical Islam, and they seem to think that even ridiculous measures like this are better than being seen to do nothing. I doubt that the French people will be fooled by this.