Systematic Discrimination in Canadian Immigration (Historical)

Systematic Discrimination in Canadian Immigration (Historical)

Today I want to take a closer look at a part of Canadian history than Canadians don’t like to talk about. There are significant spans of time in Canadian history where our government created and upheld some very racist laws pertaining to refugees, immigrants, and immigration. Some of these laws were very overt and blatantly discriminatory while others were more subtly non-inclusive. As Canadians we should be ashamed of these terrible laws that are a part of our past. However, that shame should not cause us to sweep these horrible bits of history under the rug because we need to remember them in order to ensure that they never happen again.

Here are some examples for Canada’s past that we should keep in mind and prevent them from happening again:

1. The Chinese Exclusion Act (1885-1923)

This act “imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants of $50, [which] increased to $100 in 1900 and to $500 in 1903” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000). During the years of this act “more than $22 million were collected in head tax payments” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000).

2. The Chinese Immigration Act (1923-1947)

This act meant “almost total prohibition of Chinese immigration in Canada” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000).

3. Order in Council (1908)

This was known as the “’continuous passage rule’ which had the effect of excluding from immigration people who could not make a direct journey to Canada” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000). Who were they discriminating against and trying to keep out? Reportedly, “immigrants from India, since there was at the time no direct voyage from India” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000) to Canada. This rule did not apply to Europeans however, except in the 1920’s when it was used to discriminate against Eastern Europeans (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000).

4. Order in Council (1911)

This “prohibited ‘any immigrant belonging to the Negro race, which race is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada’” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000). This order was “never proclaimed” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000) but the government clearly tried to discriminate against immigrants from the African continent in even proposing such a law.

5. Prohibition of Immigration by Doukhobors, Mennonites and Hutterites (1919-1922)

What reason did the government give for prohibiting these individuals? Apparently it was their “’peculiar habits, modes of life and methods of holding property’” (Canadian Council for Refugees 2000). Apparently, communal agrarian communities were against Canadian values at the time. I suspect this had to do with the Bolsheviks in Russia at the time and the fear that Communism would spread, which ties back into the information in my previous post: discrimination towards immigrants often happens during troubling times, and immigrants are the target because they are convenient scapegoats.

Responding to Discriminatory Comments

Now, I’m an avid reader of blogs and online news from both sides of the political spectrum. I like having a complete picture of any issue and the discussion surrounding it before I form my own opinion. (This is one of the most valuable skills I have picked up from my university courses in Political Science.)

So, today I want to address a general statement that I often see on blogs and in comments sections. It usually goes something like this:

-          “I’m not a racist, but those immigrants…”

-          “It’s not racist to say that we need to stop accepting refugees…”

-          “It has nothing to do with race. I just don’t like foreigners…”

Right away from a rhetorical point of view I find it hard to believe these kinds of statements because of the stated or implied “but”. I have found that the conjunction “but” often indicates that faulty logic is about to follow a statement. (Of course, there are many arguments that use “but” and proceed to support their points wonderfully but the ones I am referring to rarely do this.) I find that “but” is not the best way for a logical argument to unfold, and more credible arguments usually make use of “if… then” statements instead.

I’ll just step down from the “rhetoric soapbox” now that I’ve said my peace on the matter, and get down to discussing the actual premise of the above example statements. These statements all have one thing in common: they are asserting that expressing distaste, dislike, and other negative emotions towards immigrants, refugees, or “foreigners” is not discriminatory or racist. Essentially, these statements are about justification. The author is trying to justify their judgment of individuals based on a group stereotype as being “okay” by stating that they are not being racist or discriminatory… while making racist or discriminatory statements. You can see the logical flaws here.

However, let’s put aside rhetorical issues and logical flaws for now. Let’s just look at the assumption that hating, being rude to, or openly disliking people simply because they are immigrants and refugees is not somehow racist, as authors of the above type of comments are suggesting. What evidence can be used to refute their claims? For this, I turn to the “Report on Systemic Racism and Discrimination In Canadian Refugee and Immigration Policies” put out by the Canadian Council for Refugees on November 1, 2000.

Their introduction states:

“Intolerance of refugees and immigrants, xenophobia and racism are intricately linked. Indeed, in Canada, where open expression of racist ideas is generally not tolerated, hostility towards newcomers serves as an outlet for the expression of underlying racist sentiments. This is especially true in times of economic or political difficulty, when those with less power, including newcomers, are easy scapegoats for the shortcomings of society.

Anti-refugee and anti-immigrant prejudices foster hostility and violence against newcomers…”

This passage asserts the exact opposite of what the above examples argue. That is, intolerance towards refugees and immigrants is racism and discrimination, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter how an author or poster or commentator “window-dresses” their intolerant comments; they are still expressing discriminatory statements. The motivations behind these statements, the passage contends are the result of tough times and the need for a defenseless social scapegoat.



Let me know what you think in the comments or on Twitter!