Just another UBC Blogs site

‘White Civility’ Within the Immigration Act of 1910

The Canadian Immigration Act of 1910 is widely recognized as a discriminatory piece of legislation. Within this act, the Canadian executive branch could refuse entry to any incoming immigrants, regardless of race, if they were deemed “unsuited to the climate and requirements of Canada” (CanLit). Also, the act allowed the Canadian government to deport any immigrant not suited to Canada without the interference of the judicial system. The act also introduced domicile or permanent residency for any immigrants who had been residing in Canada for 3 years or longer (Immigration Act).

Undoubtedly, the Immigration Act gave almost absolute power to the executive branch of the Canadian Government in regards to immigration. The act allowed for blatant racism toward those deemed undesirable. Although the act was extremely drastic, apparently there was little resistance in the Cabinet. The act did not encourage any discussion on the values or aims of Canadian immigration policy within the government.

While this act did not encourage much debate in the government, it did encourage immigration from Northern Europe, as well as discriminated against those emigrating from other parts of the world. For instance, in the act, the government introduced a policy stating that those who were emigrating from Asia would need to have at least $200.00 in their possession. In contrast, those emigrating from Northern Europe would only need to have $25.00 in their possession (Immigration Act). Also, the Canadian government actually rewarded those who had emigrated from Northern Europe. According to the CanLit guides, “They offered land grants of 120 acres each for suitable immigrants, including British, Scandinavian, Icelandic, Doukhobor, Mennonite, and Ukrainian farmers.”

As Daniel Coleman argues in his book, White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada, Canadian culture during the 19th and 20th century attempted to make “‘white, male Britishness’ [the] normative for the Canadian citizen.” Coleman argues “white civility” was achieved through the telling of British narratives and allegorical figures.

The Immigration Act of 1910 did encourage immigration from white nations in Northern Europe. The act allowed the Canadian government to deport those of any race who were deemed not Canadian. Due to these features of the act, I believe that this act supports Coleman’s argument of “white civility.” It appears that, during this time, the Canadian government did have an ideal Canadian citizen in mind. In fact, as stated in both Coleman’s book and the CanLit section, “Nationalism: late 1800s-1950s: Canadian Immigration and War,” “the bureaucrat in charge of immigration, Clifford Sifton, famously stated that the ideal immigrants to Canada were ‘men in sheepskin coats and their wives.’” The Immigration Act of 1910 represented the Canadian government’s discrimination towards non-whites and the privileges they gave to whites.

 

Works Cited

Coleman, Daniel. “Book Outline: White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada.” McMaster University, http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~canadianliteraryculture/images/stories/documents/WhiteCivilityBookOutline.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2016.

“Forging Our Legacy: Canadian Citizenship and Immigration, 1900-1977.” Government of Canada, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/legacy/chap-3.asp. Accessed 27 Oct 2016.

“Immigration Act, 1910.” Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21,  https://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/immigration-act-1910. Accessed 27 Oct 2016.

“Nationalism, late 1800s-1950s: Canadian Immigration and War.” CanLit Guides, 9 Aug 2013, http://canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/nationalism-late-1800s-1950s-canadian-immigration-and-war/. Accessed 26 Oct 2016.

« »

Spam prevention powered by Akismet