Assignment:
In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.
My response:
“Up to April 10, 1978, to talk of racism in Canadian immigration policy is over generous to the Government of Canada. Rather, we should talk of racism as Canadian immigration policy.”
–« Racism in Canadian Immigration Policy: Part One: The History », David Matas (emphasis in original)
I have been surprised to discover, while reading the Immigration Act of 1910, that Canada forbade the immigration of « idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous » (Immigration Act 3a), « immigrations who are dumb, blind, or otherwise physically defective, unless in the opinion of a Board of Inquiry or officer acting as such they have sufficient money, or have such profession, occupation, trade, employment or other legitimate mate mode of earning a living that they are not liable to become a public charge or unless they belong to a family accompanying them or already in Canada » (Immigration Act 3c), and « immigrants to whom money has been given or loaned by any charitable organization for the purpose of enabling them to qualify for landing in Canada under this Act” (Immigration Act 3h). Other stipulations were less surprising, such the barring of prostitutes and pimps from immigration.
I was also surprised to discover that immigrants and tourists were required to “possess in their own right money to a prescribed minimum amount, which amount may vary according to race, occupation or destination of such immigrant or tourist, and otherwise according to the circumstances” (Immigration Act 37, emphasis mine).
I also discovered that “The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order whenever he deems it necessary or expedient…prohibit for a stated period, or permanently, the landing in Canada, or the landing at any specified port of entry in Canada, of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada, or of immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character” (Immigration Act 38c). This policy was used to “prohibit immigrants of the German, Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian or Turkish races” (Matas 8) in 1919 and to bar “the landing in Canada of Dukhobors, Hutterites, and Mennonites” (Matas 8) that same year. This especially surprised me due to the large Mennonite population in Manitoba. (Does anyone reading this know when they arrived?)
Section 79 of the Immigration Act stipulates that both the Immigration Act and Chinese Immigration Act apply to Chinese immigrants (which, according to the Chinese Immigrant Act, includes British immigrants of Chinese descent). While most Canadians today have heard of the Chinese Head Tax (part of the Chinese Immigrant Act), it is still disturbing to see the special treatment of Chinese immigrants in official government documentation.
In 1914, the Immigration Act was used to “prohibit the landing of any immigrant who came to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which he was a native or naturalized citizen” (Matas 9). As it was impossible “to purchase in India or prepay in Canada for a continuous journey from India to Canada” (Mayas 9) at that time, while direct journeys from the United Kingdom were readily available, this Order was introduced with racist intent.
While this Order and some of the others mentioned do not fall directly under the Immigration Act of 1910, they developed from its racist policy. Perhaps the most shocking policy I discovered in my research was the policy which did not exist and yet was enforced. According to Matas, “there was no Jewish Immigration Act” (9), yet immigration authorities were determined to “keep out every single Jew, fleeing first Nazi persecution, then the Holocaust, and finally the aftermath of the Holocaust” (Matas 9). Without a specific immigration act for Jews, only the Immigration Act of 1910 stood between them and Canada. The vague wording of the Act allowed anyone the immigration authorities did not like to be turned away, without specific government legislation.
All in all, I was surprised to discover just how racist Canada’s immigration policy was. While I was previously aware of the Chinese Head Tax and the treatment of Japanese Canadians in World War II, I was not aware of all the racist policy regarding Europeans. We always talk about Australia’s racist immigration policies, both past and present, yet Canada’s racist policy is relatively unknown, having been buried under rhetoric of multiculturalism.
As such, I agree with Coleman, both about Canada’s racist past and white privelege in Canada today.
© 2015 Heather Josephine Pue
Works Cited:
Immigration Act 1910. Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. Canada. Government of Canada. 1910. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
Matas, David. “Racism in Canadian Immigration Policy: Part One: The History.” Refuge Vol. 5 Issue 2 (1985): 8-9. Google. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.
“Reasons for the Head Tax.” The Critical Thinking Consortium. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.