The Immigration Act of 1910 was another means for the Canadian government to control who immigrated to Canada. Under this act, the federal cabinet “could arbitrarily prohibit the landing of any immigrant deemed ‘unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada'” (Immigration Act). “The act also introduced the concept of domicile, or permanent residency, which an immigrant could obtain after residing in Canada for three years. Until domicile was granted, an immigrant could be deported if they became classified as undesirable. Undesirable immigrants included prostitutes, pimps, vagrants and inmates of jails, hospitals and insane asylums. Under the new act, political dissidents advocating for the forceful overthrow of government and those attempting to create public disorder were also subject to deportation” (Immigration Act). But it doesn’t end there. Under this new act, the boards of inquiry were given the power to admit or, more importantly, deport immigrants to Canada “based on any evidence they considered to be credible or trustworthy” (Immigration Act). Furthermore, the Immigration Act of 1910 banned “courts and judges from reviewing, reversing or otherwise interfering in the decisions of the minister responsible for immigration and the proceedings of the boards of inquiry” (Immigration Act). Lastly, the Act stated that all immigrants of Asian decent must have at least $200 in their possession to enter Canada, while every other male and female immigrants were required to have only $25. This acted as a tool for government officials to assess if immigrants were poor, which would, in turn, prevent them from being granted access to Canada (Immigration Acts).
Because of the increase in power of control over immigrants in Canada, by 1913 the Canadian government was able to deport “almost 870 people on the grounds that they were insane. [Likewise,] another 6,900 were ordered out of the country for criminality and some 2,850 were forced to leave for fear that they were about to become criminals. Since detailed crime statistics weren’t kept, historians think this could be anything from a would-be pickpocket to someone who was a political protester” (Immigration Acts).
All of this leads me to believe that my findings support Daniel Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility. It seems like the Canadian government was very concerned about keeping Canada predominately “white” and “British”. Taking a closer look at actual copies of the Immigration Act of 1910, I am struck by the term “alien”. Under the Immigration Act of 1910, “alien” is defined as “a person who is not a British subject” (Immigration Act), while a Canadian citizen is defined as being: 1) a person born in Canada who has not become an alien or 2) a British subject who has Canadian domicile or 3) a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile. Throughout the Immigration Act of 1910 is a constant separation of people. It is clear that there was a class system imposed to separate different races/cultures of people, with British people at the peak, gaining easier access into Canada.
In terms of the word “alien” that is thrown around quite often, I am surprised by how much it hits home for me. Reading about the Immigration Act of 1910, I can’t help but realize how hard it must have been for people to immigrate to Canada during these times. At the same time, I get a sense that there must have been thousands of people who became Canadian citizens, yet didn’t feel completely Canadian because they weren’t of British descent. Even though I was born in Canada and so were my parents, I still don’t feel completely Canadian, so I can’t imagine how first generation immigrants felt. I mean, when you have to be a British subject in order to be unclassified as an “alien” it’s hard not to feel excluded.
Reading up on the Immigration Act of 1910 makes me think what kind of nation Canada would be like now if it wasn’t under British control and wasn’t so concerned with upholding “white civility as a definitive of Canadian identify” (Paterson). At the same time, it makes me think how ridiculous it all is. Canada was the home to countless indigenous people and then in came immigrants (a.k.a the British) who then decided who they would let in to “their country”. Furthermore, deciding that a “true Canadian” was white and British, when in fact the “true Canadian’s” were those living on this land well before the British. But the very crux of the issue is that there should be no “true Canadian” but rather, people leaving harmoniously under one nation. Is that too much to ask? Probably, but as soon as we start classifying people into different groups it can only create problems, especially when we are all humans and therefore one people.
Works Cited
Immigration Act, 1910. n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1910>
Immigration Acts (1866-2001). n.d. Web, 3 July 2014. <http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/specifique/immigration_e.html#1906>
Paterson, Erika. ENGL 470A: Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2014. Web. 3 July 2014.
Wow what great questions! I enjoyed your post, it makes me think of a few things:
1) I think its strange how “immigration policy” is framed in the past, but it is a continuing issue in Canada (and pretty much every other Country). I’m thinking about how, in the USA, there is a huge political debate around immigration – particularily from Mexico – and how these perspectives of the immigrant change depending on where the person is migrating from.
2) I’d like to stress that many Canadians today feel that the “WASP” (white anglo-saxon Protestant) is the “norm” when considering who is a true Canadian. Coleman uses the term “White Civility” instead of WASP, but the idea of “being” White becomes the unacknowledged model of civility and of Canadian-ness. You mention that “I get a sense that there must have been thousands of people who became Canadian citizens, yet didn’t feel completely Canadian because they weren’t of British descent.” I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I think it is still happening TODAY.
Lara, do you think the image of Canada as a cultural mosaic works in depicting a multicultural national identity? Does the cultural mosaic represent the difficult experiences of migrants? Does Canadian immigration policy today treat migrants better than the immigration act?
Lastly, I think that there are many parallels between the immigration act of 1910 and today’s migration policies (I’m thinking of all the issues in the news lately of Temporary workers “stealing” jobs, and the Live-In Caregiver program between Canada and the Philipines). I am also interested in the devaluing of non-Western schooling credentials, and how many educational institutions are not recognized within Canadian society .
Hey Krystle,
Thanks for you comment! I complete agree with your points. In terms of “the image of Canada as a cultural mosaic working to depict a multicultural identity”, I am torn. Though Canada is now home to many different cultures, I feel like there is still a lot of segregation and that the image of a “true Canadian” is still a WASP. Yet, I feel like this is the case for many other countries as well. I mean, even I, while watching the World Cup, have caught myself thinking, “Wow, that person looks _____ ethnicity, why isn’t he on _____ team”–which is ludicrous, yet the image of what the staple person looks like from each nation is so engrained in us it is hard not to be surprised when your expectations are blown. In terms of Canadian multiculturalism, I feel like things are getting better with each generation, yet we still have a long way to go. Though I feel that the tolerance for other cultures has grown, it is still obvious that there are divides when we have areas which are predominately one race or culture. Likewise, everyone knows the borders that surround that race/culture and are aware when they cross that border into another race/culture. In a sense these areas act as almost separate states within the lower mainland and everyone is aware of them. So it’s hard to feel like Canada is completely multicultural when there are still divides between between people.
Adding onto that, I remember learning an American immigration term in History 12, that described the fact that when immigrants came to America, they agreed to forsake their heritage and, instead, took on the American culture in it’s entirety. Literally pledged allegiance to the flag, which makes perfect sense when you look at American pride/culture. And I remember thinking at the time how unfortunate it was that Canadians prided themselves on not being “one nation”, but rather a bunch of nations in one country. I thought, we (Canadians) will never be completely one collective nation because we decided to withhold and protect all cultures to the point where there is no clear “Canadian culture.” But what I realized was that I was too concerned with the idea of Canada being one entity, when really I should of realized the importance of the world being one entity. With that said, if all immigrants turned their backs on their culture and adopted a purely “Canadian culture,” Canada would be at war with all other countries just like the US. The US has so much pride because of its “cultural unity” that any other culture outside of it is automatically deemed as lesser or flawed. So, I am realizing that Canada is a step ahead of the game because multiculturalism is preparing us to look at other cultures as equally important and, therefore, forcing us to see the people behind those cultures as people just like us–all equal because we are all people.
“Does Canadian immigration policy today treat migrants better than the immigration act?”… In some respects (a.k.a being less racist in terms of their selection of who they let into Canada) yes, but in others no. Even though people aren’t being turned away by strictly their ethnicity anymore, I feel like in some respects it is still happening due the guidelines of today’s immigration policy. With this idea of “skilled immigrants to be offered ‘express entry’ to Canada in 2015”, I think that there will be an influx of migrants from wealthier nations, which will lead to an exclusion of certain cultures most definitely and an influx of others.
All in all, I think Canada still has a long way to go, yet I believe we are ahead of many other countries today in terms of immigration and multiculturalism.
Hi Lara,
Thank you for such an insightful post with great questions. As a dual American and Canadian citizen, who is visibly identifiable as South Asian, I’ve always had an interest in racial injustice and the history of racial groups essentially being robbed of their human rights as victims of maintaining “white civility.” Canada in the global regime tends to be projected as a country of racial diversity, one where there is a national identity resulting from a culmination of smaller ethnic groups, but the fact is that colonization in Canada and much of the Western World meant separating and deliberately excluding other races to preserve the European, Anglo class. As embarrassing it is to admit, our culture today has not fully reconciled the social injustice experienced by outside groups and contemporary forces of exclusion still linger as a result. Like you mentioned, being born Canadian and your parents born Canadian does not mean you feel Canadian. You can still feel “alien” and it’s crazy to think that on top of that, “alien” still remains a legal term used to refer to non-citizens.
I think the egalitarian view you conclude your post with captures a hope that represents a truly reconciled society, and I think Canada is relatively moving closer to this than other Anglo-dominant communities. For example, I’m not sure if you’ve watched the video tribute to the 76 UBC Japanese students forced to leave BC in 1942- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNrBxZKicZM. It’s a beautiful video that captures the view you conclude with. Seeing humans as equal and making harmonious amends.
Hi Rabia,
Thanks for your comment! I especially loved your comment, “Canada in the global regime tends to be projected as a country of racial diversity, one where there is a national identity resulting from a culmination of smaller ethnic groups, but the fact is that colonization in Canada and much of the Western World meant separating and deliberately excluding other races to preserve the European, Anglo class”. I think that a lot of us get stuck in this idea that we are such a multicultural nation, but the closer I look, the more segregation I see. Yes, we are more tolerant than many other countries, but that doesn’t mean that our image of a “true Canadian” being a WASP has changed. And the fact is, there shouldn’t be ONE image that is innately Canadian. We should pride ourselves on having millions of images. Likewise, if we call ourselves “Canadian”, it shouldn’t make us any more or less apart from any other culture because at the end of the day, we all belong to the same species, which I think should be a culture in itself. The human culture.
And thanks so much for posting that video. I had no knowledge of this event and am glad that I am now aware of the injustices that occurred to the 76+ Japanese people forced to leave BC in 1942. It is truly heartbreaking and it takes me back to the reason of why it is important to separate races/cultures because when that happens, each race/culture is compartmentalized and judged as a whole, instead of each person being judged personally on an individual level.
And “as embarrassing as it is to admit”, I had to look up the term “egalitarian.” But, I am very grateful that I now know what it means because I now have a word that represents my views. 🙂
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. You stated, (the immigration act decided) that a “true Canadian” was white and British, when in fact the “true Canadian’s” were those living on this land well before the British. My perspective, similar to yours, is that immigration policies in Canada have historically represented the racist ideologies of their time. The Immigration Act seemed to serve to emphasize European dominance over First Nation peoples in regards to ownership of land. Unfortunately, Canadian history is riddled with examples of legal discrimination where the government was used to assimilate or marginalize non-British, non-Christian, or non-Caucasian groups. Through the Immigration Act, another form of discrimination that came along could be referred to as social discrimination which includes attitudes and practices within general society that humiliate and degrade minority groups, and act as barriers to equality.
I agree with you that our country is probably farther ahead with multiculturalism than most. However, we still face many barriers and there are many racist connotations that go under the radar such as ideological stereotypes. Do you see a link with such legal documents as the Immigration Act of 1910 and these barriers or do you find they are individual based? (Sorry if this sounds like jargon. I’m very tired at this point!)
Hi Kristin,
Thanks for your comment! I hope I have understood you correctly, but yes, I do think there are many things that go under the radar in terms of immigration that definitely relate to Immigration Act of 1910. A few years back, I remember one of my peers telling me about her girlfriend who couldn’t come to Canada without a Visa. She is Mexican and because of the drug and refugee problems between the states and Mexico, Canada put a halt on Mexicans coming into Canada without visas. And the process to get a visa was ridiculous, with tons of paperwork involved and money. She did end up doing all the work only to get declined because, back in the day, she was caught stealing a cheap bracelet or something when she was thirteen. As a result, she wasn’t able to come to Canada. Instead she flew to Seattle and then my peer had to drive down to Seattle to see her. Stories like this, and the fact that Steven Harper ‘inadvertently’ banned most Mexicans from entering Canada (by making them jump through many hoops to gain access), are a cause for concern. After all, the new visa law was placed on the entire Mexican people, not just certain criminals, etc. I think Canada, and many other countries, have an issue with generalizing or ‘type-casting’. It seems like if some ‘bad eggs’ come into “their” country, they assume everyone from that same country and those alike are the same. Thus, a whole country is put on their radar, instead of select individuals. And again, this stems from the “us” and “them” mentality. If one of “them” is bad, then all of “them” have are bad because “they” are all cut from the same cloth.