Does Canada Need Immigration?

October 1st, 2018 | C. Wang
canada immigration

Across the developed world countries are recoiling at immigration. Whether it’s the refugee crisis in Europe or the Mexican border in the United States, people are concerned about crime, suppressed wages and the loss of cultural unity.


Canada’s situation is much different than other Western countries and there are five main reasons why the problems we see in other first world nations regarding immigration aren’t applicable in our case.




1. Canada has a short history



Many European countries are oldancient even. They have more history and culture and shared unity than Canada does. This makes assimilation and cultural change more difficult in those regions than it does for Canada.



Quick history of Canada.



It was a hunter-gatherer society of Indian tribes for thousands of years. Then French people set up an outpost in 1534. Brits and French spent three hundred years fort building and fur trading and got us to the point where we became an official country in 1867. Now here we are.



Whoop-dee-doo.



Piling in thousands of immigrants at this point hardly threatens our “glorious” history of camping-style life, followed by modern “kind-of-like-America” culture. Up until the 1930’s we were considered British citizens. Our government is headed by a lady in England.


Conserving whatever our country is right now is not a huge priority. Better to build towards the future than linger in our imagined past.




2. Canada is virtually vacant



We’ve got one of the lowest population densities in the world. France is about the same size as Manitoba and yet France has a population almost double that of Canada. We’re the second largest country in the world and we don’t even have as many people as Spain or Argentina or tiny little England. California is more populated than Canada.



I know what you’re thinkingthey all move to Toronto or Vancouver! It’s putting a strain on our public services and infrastructure! To this I respond: Who cares?!



Toronto and Vancouver both lean heavily to the left and advocating for less immigrants in order to win those two regions over isn’t going to fly. They won’t compromise their leftist ideology regarding “diversity” and “tolerance” and “inclusion” anyway, so let them bear the brunt of mass immigration while the rest of Canada reaps the rewards. Rewards that can be learned from this website aiming for a Canada of 100 million by 2100.




3. Homogeneous, white, low-immigration Canada produced generations of left-wing drift



Canada was a fairly conservative country up until the 1960’s. You ever see CBC reports from back then? It’s like watching Fox News today. Progressive policy innovation implemented in the United States was often adopted, sometimes reluctantly, in Canada years later. Ontario was perpetually governed by the PC’s, and Alberta was perpetually governed by Social Credit. Quebec was actually Catholic. The country was roughly 97% white in 1961.



What did all this lead to?



Mass abortion. No-fault divorce. Stagflation. Economic dependency on the United States. A crippled military. Higher taxes. Four terms of Pierre Trudeau. A couple of attempts by Quebec at destroying the country. Near bankruptcy followed by a generation of austerity. Another Trudeau. NDP provincial governments repeatedly elected all over the place.



Canada WAS the conservative country many of us desire and look where it brought us? Is this the fault of immigrants? In 1980, Canada was 96% white and our immigration levels were low. Yet people voted in Pierre Trudeau for a fourth and devastating final term.



New Canadians are not a threat to a conservative Canada…”Old Stock Canadians” were and are a much bigger problem.




4. Canada is too remote for single source immigration problems



Canada only has one neighbour. The United States. Yes, if you go far enough north you can include Russia and Norway I guess, but realistically our only neighbour is to our south. Because of this we aren’t deluged with single-source immigrants that can cause problems due to their numbers.


The United States has to deal with Mexico and the problems that have come with it. Europe has to deal with migrants that come by the boatload from hostile Muslim cultures. These majority/minority situations give a critical mass to specific immigrants and facilitate the development of ethnic ghettos. Canada’s remoteness plays an advantageous role in allowing us to have a more disparate and diverse immigration which helps foster better assimilation and adaptation.




5. Diversity



Since Canada is so remote, we don’t have to deal with proximity problems involving single source countries. This also gives us an advantage in simply selecting who arrives in Canada. Most immigrants come by plane and this affords us the strictest and most comprehensive ability to screen and assess people coming in. They also have to apply from abroad, which gives us plenty of time to consider and process. (Yes, I’m aware of border jumpers from the U.S. recently. That issue is severely overblown and if it wasn’t for xenophobic Quebecers we probably wouldn’t be talking about it.)



As a result, Canada can pick and choose the immigrants that we allow to arrive here. We can select immigrants that will suit our best interests. The meritocracy of the process means we have great amounts of people coming from a great variety of source countries. Many of these countries have positive conservative attributes that will serve to bolster Canada’s own burgeoning conservatism.

Here’s our top three source countries.




1. Philippines - 50,846 (in 2015)



First of all, their president is awesome. Rodrigo Duterte is basically Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry. If this is an indication of how Filipinos vote, then we need millions more in Canada fast.



Secondly, Filipinos are real Catholics and bring their social conservatism with them.



Thirdly, they are family orientated, hard working and law abiding. When do you ever hear about Filipino gangs or organized crime? When I think of Filipinos I think of nurses and blue collar, down-to-earth types. 50,846 Filipinos arriving every year should be immediately welcomed as an entire wing of Canadian conservatism.




2. India - 39,530 (in 2015)



India has a long history of sending people to Canada. We’ve got the Commonwealth connection and most everyone speaks English. Often highly educated, entrepreneurial and family orientated, Indians are a natural fit with Canada’s conservatism.




3. China - 19,532 (in 2015)



China used to be our number one source country, but as China has developed it is now offering more reasons for the Chinese to stay and less to leave. Due to sheer numbers of Chinese, they will probably stay in the top 5 of our source countries for the next 30 years at least.



Many are Christian. Many are capitalist. Many are socially conservative.



In the 2011 election the polls for the Conservatives were so strong amongst Chinese-Canadians that the effort was made to just “get out the vote” in Chinese communities regardless of registered voting preference. The whole liberalizing drugs thing doesn’t go over well in a community that had historical experience with Opium Wars. China’s national average IQ is 105, number three in the world. (Hong Kong is number one)



Let’s reach out for more.




4. Everywhere else - 150,000 (2015)



As mentioned in the points above, Canada is wildly diverse. Once you get past the top three source countries, the entirety of the next 60% of immigrants come from 187 other countries. This diversity helps to create a broad based spectrum of newcomers that are forced to integrate much more effectively than in most other developed countries.



Canada is going to undergo radical change in the next ten years as immigration rates are raised to enormous levels and the culture will be up for grabs in the process. The natural conservatism that immigrants often exhibit can be extolled more openly and championed in ways that “Old Stock Conservatives” have previously felt self-conscious about.



Although there’s an argument to be made for trying to jump on a more nativist bandwagon based on a substantial segment of the population’s reticence for more immigrants, it’s not going to gain traction. In the short term you might be able to rally the base around restrictionist policies, but the immigration momentum and Canada’s demographic decline make ever higher immigration rates inevitable. Conservatives can embrace the change and make the most of it, or they can fight it and lose in the long run.