"in the past, the disparities"

Need some help here.  Mark Steyn has been on a bit of a demography and immigration kick lately in case you hadn't noticed, and in making his "demography is destiny" argument, he's had to confront a bit of a conundrum: as high as immigration rates are currently, they have been as high or higher at certain times in the past.  (I write this post without delving too deeply into the slightly disturbing strains of hysteria which seemed to grip some parts of the Canadian blogosphere within the past couple of months after the most recent Canadian 2006 Census report came out about immigration and urbanization trends - one day I'd like to take some time and examine some of the more disturbing anti-immigration rhetoric which came out of that, but I didn't have time then and don't really have time now... so it'll have to wait.)  I don't mean to simplify Steyn's argument, because I don't think it is one which is easily dismissed out of hand, nor is it the same argument which it is caricatured as by some of those who consider themselves on the other side of the political divide from Steyn.  But this post isn't about Steyn's broader argument - rather, it is about a particular passage from one of his most recent columns in The Western Standard.

The column can be found here (registration required) - the full text should be online in a few weeks (the Standard keeps opinion columns from its current print issue (or at least Steyn's columns) behind a registration wall until the next print issue is available).  Here is the passage:

Prior to the boom of the nineties and oughts, the all-time blockbuster immigration year was 1913, when 400,000 "new Canadians" arrived.  Whether they looked at it like that is another matter: most of them were British subjects moving from one part of His Majesty's realms to another.  In that sense, it was not "immigration" at all, or not as currently understood.  The 2006 census numbers take as a given that the Canada of the 21st century will be a project built almost exclusively by foreigners.

Here's the thing: I'm not quite convinced that the factual underpinning for Steyn's argument is correct.  Problem is, I'm having a bit of trouble coming to a conclusion one way or the other.  So here's the question: in 1913, did "most" immigrants to Canada consist of Britsh subjects?  That doesn't sound quite right, but I could be entirely wrong.  I'm trying to find authoritative sources on the matter, but am having a bit of trouble, so I'm wondering if someone reading this might be able to find something (Selley? You still out there?).

Here's what I've been able to find thus far.  This site contains some handy charts which set out the ethnic origin of immigrants to Canada from 1896 to 1915 (with the onset of the First World War, immigration plunged to negligible levels).  So far as I can tell, for the year in question (1913) British subjects comprised 39.5% of immigrants to Canada, a number which is roughly comparable for the five preceding years (some years it was slightly higher, some years lower).  The site lists "Statistics Section - Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada" as its source, but doesn't provide any pertinent links.

The closest set of relevant data from StatsCan itself is in this issue of Canadian Social Trends, published by StatsCan.  The article "100 years of immigration in Canada" is a wealth of information, and anyone interested in the topic is strongly encouraged to spend some time reading it.  On page 4, we find this passage: "At the start of the century the majority of immigrants to Canada had originated in the United States or the United Kingdom.  However, during the 1910s and 1920s, the number born in other European countries began to grow, slowly at first, and then rising to its highest levels in 1961 and 1971."  On page 10, there is a graph which I find difficult to read with any precision, which purports to show the relative numbers of immigrants from different ethnic backgrounds.  But the numbers of immigrants from the UK as reflected in the graph seem significantly higher than the numbers shown at the Ships List site linked to above.

So, can anyone find an online Statscan source which provides, in numerical rather than graphical form, numbers for immigration by ethnic group for the opening years of the twentieth century?

Comments

[Anonymous]

"The 2006 census numbers take as a given that the Canada of the 21st century will be a project built almost exclusively by foreigners."
- unlike Generals Wolfe and Montcalm, who's ancestors crossed the Bering Strait several thousand years before the Plains of Abraham.

As to your actual question, I think the level of detail is probably only available by purchasing the records through stats Can, or visiting the public library. That would have the necessary information on births, mother tongues, etc.

BTW, you might be interested in reading http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120047. For what it's worth, Steyn actually doesn't understand anything about demographics - amongst many subjects he has no understanding of.

~The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist

[Ian]

Best free source is the print volumes of the census'. If you're willing to pay table 075-0022 in CANSIM will give you "Historical statistics, country of birth of other British-born and foreign-born population, every 10 years" from 1871-1971.

I think you're probably going to have to go to a Gov Docs library to sort this out.

[James Bow]

Tension over the influx of new immigrants is not new -- and, in some ways it is; just not as new as we think. In the Middle Ages, there was very little movement of populations, so the insular powers of Europe didn't have to contend with an influx of people divergent from the indigenous population (although that didn't save the Roma and the Jews from persecution). Even after the discovery of the New World through until the late 18th century, the tension between indigenous population and migrants tended to be settled at the point of a gun, with the indigenous population of the Americas usually finding themselves on the wrong side of that gun. Each colony of the Americas tended to be supplied by the European powers that founded them. It's only after America broke its ties from England that the possibility of accepting migrants from other countries became a serious option.

Which leads us to the Know Nothing movement.

As my wife explained it to me, many people don't realize how much the American Revolution was a carry-over of the English Civil War. The winning side of the American Revolution was largely protestant, and had been brought up to be very suspicious of state controlled religion (Anglicanism and especially Catholicism). Well, along come the 1840s and America receives its first major influx of immigrants, largely from Ireland and southern Europe, and largely Catholic. Many in the established population of the United States feared job losses, loss of influence, and the "Catholicization" of America. Some went as far as to form essentially terrorist groups, to attack prominent figures in the growing Irish and Italian communities. New York City, especially, became a battleground, with the Irish winning out during the infamous Tammany Hall era.

The groups that attacked the new immigrants tended to be called "Know Nothings" because, of course, when the authorities came looking for the individuals behind certain attacks, members of the communities who knew full well who'd done it would say they "know nothing."

Whoever wrote in the Western Standard that immigration to Canada in the early part of the 20th century was without problem are conveniently forgetting the tension that existed between the English and the Irish in this country. Indeed, the parallels between our former resentment towards Catholics bears considerable similarities between some people's resentment towards Muslims.

[James Bow]

The tensions between the Catholics and the Protestants in America didn't really subside until after World War II, when the two groups fought side by side against the Axis powers. Even so, John F. Kennedy had to overcome some anti-Catholic sentiment in order to become president of the United States.

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth, just about every single ethnic group that has come here has had the Mark Steyn of their era, assure us that said group was unassimiable, and that they would out-breed the nice anglo-saxon people, leading to the decline of western civilization. Asians, slavs, Jews, the Irish, blacks, and now Muslims.

Though the Irish and Jewish experiences tend to be the more interesting - and by interesting, I mean interesting in a bad way.

[Chris]

Although no one ever really had to worry that the Irish were going to strap dynamite onto their chest and detonate it and themself in a public place.

[Randy]

"Just about every single ethnic group.... Asians, slavs, Jews, the Irish, blacks, and now Muslims..."

Muslims are not an ethnic group.

"Although no one ever really had to worry that the Irish were going to strap dynamite onto their chest and detonate it and themself in a public place."

Yes. That's right. They didn't. The Irish terrorized people by other means. There's a popular "drink" amongst the kids these days known as a "car bomb" involving (wasting, in my opinion) Bailey's Irish Cream and Guinness. Now why, oh why, would a drink involving two Irish alcoholic artifacts be associated with car bombs? Boggles the mind really.

Yes yes, before you say anything, I do know that car bombings tended to have specific targets, while suicide bombers tend to want to kill whoever happens to be nearby when the bomb goes off. This makes it better? Or less worse?

[Anonymous]

'"Just about every single ethnic group.... Asians, slavs, Jews, the Irish, blacks, and now Muslims..."

Muslims are not an ethnic group.'

Neither are Jews. If you want to argue semantics over how each ethno-cultural-religious group should be categorized, that's fine. Though I think my argument is still valid.

And it is also worth noting, that the Irish did attack civilian targets in the UK in the 1970s. The British response: anti-terror legislation that succeeded in throwing the wrong people in jail.

[Randy]

"Though I think my argument is still valid."

We could get into an argument of the semantics of the word "argument" as well. I don't think you made one. It's more of a claim, in my opinion. If we want to get fancy we could call it a hypothesis or a conjecture. An argument is something you use to back up a claim (or a hypothesis or a conjecture, if we want to get fancy), and you haven't done that.

Would you call Christians an ethnic group as well? Other than to spite me.

[Anonymous]

"Would you call Christians an ethnic group as well? Other than to spite me."

Sure, if you like. Arguing (or is that hypothesising, conjecturing, discussing) semantics can be great fun.

And incidentally, the Nazi's argued that Jewish people were, in fact, a racial group that had specific hereditery characteristics (which of course, rendered them undesirable).

[Chris]

I do think there is a substantial difference between a car bomb and a sucide bombing. In the one case you're dealing with someone rational enough to have a definate target for the most part and who wishes to perserve their own life. On the other hand you're dealing with someone who embraces martydom and destroys themself and as many people as possible in the process. At least Irish terrorists behaved rationally.

[JR]

bob,

You might write to Steyn and ask him directly about his statistics and where he got them. He's usually pretty forthcoming. I'd like to hear his answer too.

[ebt]

Of the astonishing idiocies I've seen on comments boards, "Jews are not an ethnic group" takes the cake.

[Anon.]

Census data on the increase in the number of foreign-born between census years 1901 and 1911 as well as 1911 and 1921 can be found at link below. See table A260-269, and A297-326, among others.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-516-XIE/sectiona/sectiona.htm

It indicates that pre-WWI immigration was was majority non-british. Perhaps 1913 was an anomalous year, though its seems unlikely.

Steyn's demography alarmism usually excludes Canada. Maybe because Statcan data does not support it -- see "Fertility of Visible Minority Women in Canada" in "Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada".

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/91-209-XIE/91-209-XIE2003000.pdf

[James Bow]

At least Irish terrorists behaved rationally.

Not sure how that's a benefit. The big evil of terrorism is not that the terrorist values life so little that he will kill himself along with those around him, but that they kill individuals indiscriminately.

Indeed, one trick some Irish terrorists did during the campaign was to hold an individual's family hostage, load up his car with explosives and tell him to drive at the British, detonating him and his car, or else his family would be shot.

I can't see how anybody could claim that this level of evil is any different, much less somehow less evil, than what Palestinian terrorists are currently doing.