Category Archives: Immigration Law

Immigration

Immigration in Canada

The Great Depression

The 1930’s brought misery to Canadians as low wages and high rates of unemployment became the norm at the same time as prices remained comparatively high. Unemployment reached about 30% in 1933, and the percentage was even higher for certain categories of workers, or in certain regions. For example, the rate of unemployment among the young males between the ages of 16 and 24 of Quebec City reached 46% in 1936-1937 if we are to trust the result of a survey conducted by the local chapter of the Association catholique de la jeunesse canadienne. It should be borne in mind that unemployment insurance did not yet exist in the 1930’s. As well, Canadians had always been conditioned to think of immigration as essentially serving the economic interest of Canada. Immigration had been supported by ordinary Canadians to the extent that the immigrants “knew their place”, that they contributed to the Canadian economy, that is that they settled on farms in the great western prairies of Canada, that they were not seen as competing for the often scarce industrial jobs of Canada. When the job market contracted, few in Canada were prepared to support the entrance of any large number of immigrants. These could only be seen as potentially entering Canada to compete for jobs and depressing wages further. Governments were accutely aware of these feelings and adjusted the system accordingly. Thus, in 1907, in 1913, and again in 1919-1921 – all years witnessing economic strains in Canada – steps had been taken to reduce immigration.

As time passed, Canadian governments became increasingly effective at regulating immigration and matching it to the impulses of the economy. In this respect, the Great Depression was to decimate immigration in Canada. Its first impact can be measured by looking at the rapidly rising number of deportations of immigrants that occured during the Great Depression. If immigrants lost their job, which was frequently the case since they were the last to be hired, they were ruthlessly deported from Canada. Between 1930 and 1934, 16,765 immigrants were deported from Canada as having become “public charge”; by 1935, the number of deportations had reached more than 28,000. These numbers were several times the rate of deportation seen in the 1920’s. As time passed, the grounds for deportation became more and more varied: one could be deported for union activities, or for membership in the Communist Party, for medical reasons or for petty charges of criminality, such as vagrancy, a not uncommon charge during the Great Depression.

The ruthless application of deportation shows to what extent immigration was unpopular in the country during the depression years. In this context, immigrants found few friends in Canada. The first few years of the Great Depression saw several restrictive regulations adopted by the Canadian government (P. C. 1113 in 1929; P. C. 659 and 1957 in 1930 and P. C. 695 in 1931). The net effect of these regulations was that, by 1932, only Americans, British subjects and agriculturalists with enough capital to start farming in Canada could be admitted. In the process, the number of landed immigrants into Canada had gone from 166,783 in 1928 to 14,382 in 1933 (and was to continue to decrease until 1937). Thus, Jews attempted to enter Canada in the 1930’s at a time when the country had nearly entirely closed its doors to immigrants and when immigration was likely at its most unpopular level since Confederation. As historians Robert Bothwell, Ian Drummond and John English put it in their book entitled Canada, 1900-1945: “For Canadians, the Great Depression was the overwhelming fact of the decade (p. 295).” It should also be noted that the percentage of Jews in the overall number of immigrants to Canada in the 1930’s did not decrease when we compare it to the situation that prevailed in the period of 1896 to 1929.

Canadian immigration policy before 1945

Canada did not have a refugee policy. Essentially, the country did not distinguish between refugees – who clearly would require special considerations, if not the total suspension of the ordinary rules – and regular immigrants. Consequently, refugees were required to follow all the regulations that were imposed on ordinary immigrants. How could a Jewish refugee from Germany who had been dispossessed of all his worldly possessions show he could support himself in Canada? Canada had admitted some groups of refugees in the XIXth century (Hutterites and Mennonites for example) but only because these were farmers who came as a block settlement at a time of intensive western development, and who otherwise qualified under Canadian Immigration Law. Other groups, such as Armenians for example, had been largely denied asylum in Canada (see Isabel Kaprielian-Churchill, “Armenian Regugees and their Entry into Canada, 1919-1930”, Canadian Historical Review, Vol. LXXI, No. 1 (Spring 1990): 80-108). Only after the Second World War did Canada begin to develop a significant refugee policy. The absence of a generous and sensitive refugee policy in Canada during the Great Depression was hugely felt by Jews in the 1930’s.

Some issues

1.Open doors (only as to overall number of immigrants); the more immigrants would come to Canada, the better it would be. We do not seek to restrict numbers and will only significantly do so during the Great Depression (1929-1939). See the following pages for number of immigrants by country of origin (1900-1920) (1921-1945) or by region (1900-1970). (More data with different periods defined)
2.Economically “self-serving” : “Only farmers need apply” (farmers, servants, labourers, miners). Ideally, immigrants should go West to farm the Prairies. Prairie farm settlement was part of the design to make the National Policy function appropriately. A “bad immigrant” was one that moved to the cities of the East to compete with Canadians for scarce industrial jobs. Ex. Memorandum from Clifford Sifton to Wilfrid Laurier (April 15, 1901): “Our desire is to promote the immigration of farmers and farm labourers. We have not been disposed to exclude foreigners of any nationality who seemed likely to become successful agriculturalists”. However, the needs of business were of paramount importance. It required low paid workers for jobs that Canadians simply would not do. Consequently, the federal Government was prepared to accommodate business so that the Canadian economy would prosper. Ex. it was not difficult for the Canadian Pacific Railway to “import” Chinese labour to finish its transcontinental railway. Such was also the case in the mines and lumber camps of Canada.
3.”Assimilation”. The model: white, anglo-saxons, protestant (WASP). The closer you are to the model, the more likely you are to be accepted by the government and the people of Canada. The more you divert from the model, the more “foreign” you are, the more difficult for you to enter Canada and the more likely you will face discrimination by ordinary Canadians once here. Section 38 of the Canadian Immigration Act of 1910 gave the Canadian Government the power to prohibit the entry “of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada”. People from “warm countries” were deemed unsuited for immigration to Canada.

a) “Preferred Category”: British and Americans, West Europeans. Example: the Empire Settlement Scheme, 1923.

b) “Acceptable Category” (although not “preferred”). These are Sifton’s immigrants in “sheep-skin coats”. East Europeans (Russians, Ukrainians, Poles); South Europeans (Italians, Greeks, Spaniards). If they go West and farm, they will be accepted although considered “foreign”, as long as they know “their place”. A regulation of 1923 classified the following countries as “non-preferred”: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. By this regulation, immigration from these countries was limited to agricultural and domestic workers and sponsored immigrants. However, as few British and American immigrants sought to enter Canada in the 1920’s, the Railway Agreements of 1925 was made to favour the coming of East Europeans to Canada. The lowest in the category of “not preferred” were the Jews (they divert from the model by virtue of their language, culture, religion… as well as tend to go to the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg; in 1921, only 4% of Canadian Jews lived in rural Canada); they were the most subjected to discrimination of all the white settlers to Canada in the pre-1945 period.

c) The “Non Preferred” and “Not Acceptable” category: Members of visible minorities. Each of these groups faced prejudice and discrimination by Canadians and their government. Laws and/or regulations were issued to prevent their coming to Canada. Yet, businesses (such as railways) frequently wanted them admitted to Canada so that a pool of “cheap labour” be available for them. These immigrants did jobs that nobody else in Canada wanted to do.

The following were the means used to keep members of visible minorities out of Canada:

i. The Chinese: Head Taxes are imposed (1885, 1900, 1903) by 1903, the head-tax was set at $500; minimum financial requirement (1908); the financial requirement was a response to the 1907 anti-Asian riots in Vancouver. Chinese Exclusion law (1923);

ii. “Indians”: “Continuous Journey” regulation was implemented (1908); see the Komagata Maru Incident (1914);

iii) Blacks: Health Regulations were used to keep them away – they were deemed “unsuited to Canada” by virtue of the climate of Canada; further, the Canadian Government hired a preacher in the period of 1908-1910 to visit the Creek-Negroes of Oklahoma and to discourage them from emigrating to the Canadian West; the Winnipeg immigration office went as far as paying a bonus to any immigration officer who rejected a black applicant. In 1911, a regulation to prohibit the entrance of Blacks into Canada was prepared by the Laurier Government. It was not issued because Laurier’s government was defeated in the general elections of the same year.

iv. Japanese: “Gentlemen Agreement”.

The post 1945 immigration policy

William Lyon Mackenzie King on Immigration (1947)

This statement of policy by Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada at the time, was made before the House of Commons:

“The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can be advantageously absorbed in our national economy. It is a matter of domestic policy […] The people of Canada do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population”.

In 1947, Mackenzie King consigned in his diary that he had trouble gaining acceptance of a post-war immigration policy restricting entry of Asians into Canada because some of his cabinet colleagues thought that the policy should be harsher while others opposed it as discriminatory. This opposition was a clear sign that things were changing in Canada.

More abut the post 1945 immigration policy

Another sign of change was a case raised in 1946 by the NSAACP (Nova Scotia Association for the Advancement of Coloured People). The Association raised money to help Viola Desmond fight segregation in Nova Scotia movie theatres. Desmond, a beautician from Halifax, had been arrested in New Glasgow when it was found she had sat downstairs in a movie theatre instead of the balcony were blacks were to sit. She was thrown in jail and fined for attempting to defraud the government of Nova Scotia of one cent of amusement tax (seats in the balcony were less expensive). For this offence, she was sentenced to 30 days in jail or a $20.00 fine. She paid the fine but appealed the decision. Eventually, the case was thrown out of Court on technicalities. However, there was such bad publicity across Canada around this case of discrimination that such laws were soon abandoned.

Characteristics of the Canadian immigration policy after 1945:

1.The progressive nature of the changes.

2.Immigration was increasingly regulated around economic cycles; immigration was increased in times of prosperity and decreased in poorer economic conditions. The economic incentive around immigration remained very strong. Mostly skilled and professional workers were sought. Here, again, changes were slow and progressive. Still in 1949, A. R. M. Lower, a prominent Canadian historian, could write in MacLean’s Magazine (May 15, 1949, p. 70): “Immigrant labour must be cheap or we would not seek it. The word ‘cheap’ includes a lot more than the money-rate — it touches such qualities as docility, timidity, ignorance. These add up to reliability. […] The primary incentive of those who want immigration is the […] realization that immigration is profitable”.

3.The progressive removal of discriminatory clauses (1947, 1952, 1962, 1967). By the late 1960’s, admission into Canada was done on a point system. These points are attributed on a non-discriminatory basis.

4.The strong anti-communist components of the policy. In the period of 1945 to 1963, anti-communism was a fundamental factor in Canadian immigration policy. At the height of the Cold War, security elements were an important feature of the policy. Anti-communist immigrants were advantaged in applying to come to Canada. Left-wing immigrants were deemed suspicious and were likely to be rejected by Canadian Immigration. It has been argued that it was easier for former fascists than their victims to enter Canada in this period. This explains why some Nazi War Criminals gained entry into Canada. We were more preoccupied with communism than Fascism.

5.The humanitarian components become important in Canadian immigration:
a. Family reunification; once in Canada, an immigrant can sponsor members of his/her family. Conditions may apply in the sponsoring program. Usually, the sponsor takes financial responsibility for an extended period of time for the immigrant.
b. Refugee policy; a policy was progressively developed. Among the blocks of admitted refugees were the following:

•Jews (1945-48)
•Hungarians (1956-1957) (38,000 refugees to Canada)
•Czechoslovakia (1968)
•Uganda (1973-1975)
•South-East Asia (1973 +)
•South Americans (1980’s, Chileans, Salvadorians)
•Various groups since the 1980’s.

Why did Canadian Immigration Policy Change After 1945

Changes in the immigration policy were done progressively. There was no sudden change immediately after 1945. Yet, unmistakably, the policy shifted. Progressively, the discriminatory clauses in the Canadian Immigration Bill were altered, then removed. Important dates to chart these changes are 1947, 1952, 1962, 1967 and 1976.

Reasons given for this change are primarily the following:
1.The economic needs of Canada changed. The country now needed highly skilled, educated, immigrants who would make an important contribution to the technological revolution taking place. Immigrants came to the cities and were seen contributing to the well-being of the country in important ways. Post-war prosperity was linked to the coming of this skilled workforce. Many of these immigrants were investing immigrants.
2.The Post-War period is one of unprecedented economic growth and increases in the standard of living. Jobs were plentiful and immigrants were not percieved as competing for scarce jobs.

Increases in Canadian family revenue over decades (inflation eliminated)

1951-1961 : 32.8%

1961-1971 : 46%

1971-1981 : 26.1%

1981-1989 : 7.1%

3.Greater education among Canadians. Prejudice often feeds on ignorance. New technology (radio, television, cinema) and foreign travel brought Canadians into contact with people from the rest of the world and made them curious, and more open, about other cultures.
4.The effect of World War II, the horror of the death camps, etc. made Canadians see what intolerance leads to. The Post-War period, especially the 1960’s, was a period of growth in the recognition of Human Rights (Canada adopts its first Bill of Rights in 1960).
5.Increasing organization of minority groups to defend their rights. Individual immigrants are not fighting prejudice alone anymore.
6.An important element of the Canadian post-war immigration policy, extending to the early 1960’s, was a strong anti-communist component. This sentiment was widespread at the height of the Cold War period. Anti-communists, and people fleeing the communist dictatorships, were given asylum in Canada. Such immigrants were popular as they justified the belief of Canadians as to the dangers and evils of Communism. In the immediate postwar period, it was sometimes easier for former fascists to enter Canada than for their victims to do so. What these fascists had in common was their strong anti-communist views. (See the review by Devin O. Pendas, “Unauthorized Entry: The Truth about Nazi War Criminals in Canada, 1946-1956” in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 17, Number 3 (Winter 2003): 505-508; the book reviewed by Pendas was Unauthorized Entry: The Truth about Nazi War Criminals in Canada, 1946-1956, by Howard Margolian, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2000, 327p.; another important study to consult is Reginald Whitaker, Double Standard: the Secret History of Canadian Immigration, Toronto, Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1987)

7.In the Post-War period, the increasing rise in the standard of living in Europe, especially in Western Europe, meant that European immigrants were less interested in immigrating to Canada. If one considers that the birth rate was rapidly declining in Canada, and that there were shortages of labour in several fields, then the country was forced to look for immigration in other parts of the world and, for that purpose, change its policies.

© 2006 Claude Bélanger, Marianopolis College

Definition of Immigration

Immigration meaning or descrpition: the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there (Source of this concept of Immigration: emp.ca/books/479-3)

Definition of Immigration

The Canada social science dictionary [1] provides the following meaning of Immigration: The movement of peoples into a country or territory (movement of people within countries is referred to as migration.) Immigration has played the central role in the development of Canada from the first permanent European settlements in the mid 1600’s to the 1990’s where 16% of Canadians were born outside Canada. The birth rate of Canada’s population – the number of children born to a woman in her fertile years – is about 1.6, much lower than the 2.1 that would be needed to maintain a stable population. The prospect of a declining and aging population has led to some calls for increased immigration to Canada . Economic recession, the demands on public services resulting from the concentrated patterns of immigrant settlement and concern about inter-ethnic tensions, have more recently led to controversy about levels of immigration. A special mention should be made of Quebec, where the population increased, until the 1960’s, mostly through a high birth rate. In history, Quebec had one of the highest birthrates known in any world society. Although there has been immigration of Francophones to Quebec, chiefly from old French colonial territories, the great majority of the Francophone population has descended from the approximately 60,000 people who lived there when the French empire over Quebec ended in 1759.

Immigration: Resources

Notes and References

  1. Drislane, R., & Parkinson, G. (2016). (Concept of) Immigration. Online dictionary of the social sciences. Open University of Canada

Chinese Exclusion Act

Chinese Exclusion Act in Canada

There were a great deal of protests within the Chinese community as a response to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923. There were protests, petitions, and the like in order to solve the issue. Eventually, this lead to the repeal of the Act, but it was not until 1967; a century after Confederation that Chinese-Canadians were given fair voting rights. Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized on behalf of the government to the Chinese community in 2006, finally marking the closure of more than a century of racism against the Chinese in Canada.

Between 1923 and 1947 when the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed, less than 50 Chinese were allowed to come to Canada. Passed on July 1, 1923, Dominion Day, this law was perceived by the Chinese Canadian community as the ultimate form of humiliation. The Chinese Canadian community called this “Humiliation Day” and refused to celebrate Dominion Day for years to come.

The Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act

The Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act came into effect to restrict Chinese immigration.

As soon as the CPR was completed, the Federal Government moved to restrict the immigration of Chinese to Canada. The first federal anti-Chinese bill was passed in 1885: the Chinese Head tax.

The Impact of the Head Tax and Exclusion Act

In addition to the Head Tax and Exclusion Act, Chinese immigrants faced other forms of discrimination in their social, economic and political lives. The most devastating impact of the Head Tax and the Exclusion Act, however, was found in the development of Chinese Canadian family. During the exclusion era, early Chinese pioneers were not allowed to bring their family, including their wives, to Canada. As a result, the Chinese Canadian community became a “bachelor society”. The Head Tax and Exclusion Act resulted in long period of separation of families. Many Chinese families did not reunite until years after the initial marriage, and in some cases they were never reunited.

While their husbands were struggling abroad, many Chinese wives in China were left to raise their children by themselves. They experienced starvation and other extreme economic hardships.

Because of years of racist, anti-Chinese immigration legislation, today the Chinese Canadian community exhibits many characteristics of first-generation immigrants despite its history of close to 150 years in Canada.

Railway Agreement

Railway Agreement in Canada

1925 Railway Agreement

After World War I, the Canadian government cautiously resumed the task of filling the West with settlers. Initial attempts at attracting primarily British migrants were fairly successful, but the vast majority of Britons immigrating to Canada at this time eventually settled in towns and cities and not on prairie farms.

Additionally, there were nearly as many people leaving Alberta for the United States as there were arriving to the province. In 1924 the United States had adopted a quota severely restricting European immigration. As this quota did not apply to native-born Canadians, and combined with severe drought conditions in central and southeastern Alberta, thousands of homesteaders pulled up stakes and headed south for greener pastures in the United States.

Immigration policy was, consequently, once again adjusted to find a source of “agriculturalists.” To this end, in 1925 the Canadian government signed the Railway Agreement with Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The railway companies were given the authority to recruit immigrants from agricultural areas in eastern, southern and central Europe. Often, the railways broke the terms of the agreement by going over quotas and by using it to bring in inexpensive labour when employment in Canada was not guaranteed. The American quota had potential European migrants now looking to Canada and, partially as a result of the agreement, 35,000 of Alberta’s migrants in the 1920s came from this part of the world. (1931 Census)

Chinese Immigration Act

Chinese Immigration Act in Canada

Chinese labour was instrumental to the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, but after the railroad was completed in 1885, the federal government wanted to restrict new Chinese immigration. They enacted An Act to restrict and regulate Chinese immigration into Canada, imposing a $50 head tax. The head tax was raised to $100 with The Chinese Immigration Act, 1900, and to $500 with the Chinese Immigration Act, 1903. In 2006, the federal government apologized for this discriminatory policy.

In 1885, the federal government decided to pass the Chinese Immigration Act, which put a special $50 head tax on Chinese immigrants in the hopes that this would deter the Chinese from entering Canada. No other ethnic group had to pay this kind of tax at the time. The head tax would increase a number of times in the early 20th century, and would prevent wives and families from joining their husbands or fathers in Canada.

The Chinese Immigration Act of 1900 (which went into effect on January 1, 1902) increased the tax to $100, and finally, in the Chinese Immigration Act of 1903, it was raised to $500. Some Chinese were exempt.

The $500 Head Tax definitely reduced Chinese immigration between early 1904 and late 1906, although the numbers began to recover in 1907.

In 1923, the federal government decided that the $500 head tax was not effective enough, and a new approch to Chinese immigration was necessary. They passed The Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, which excluded practically all Chinese immigration, save a few categories that seen as temporary, and therefore qualifed as “non-immigrants”. This Act was repealed in 1947

British Columbia

In 1897, the British Columbia Legislature passes its own Alien Labour Act excluding Chinese and Japanese. This Act against Chinese and Japanese was disallowed. The British Columbia Legislature again passed a restriction on Chinese and Japanese immigration in 1898, and again it was disallowed.

In 1899, the British Columbia Legislature again requested the federal government to raise the head tax to $500. In the previous three years, an average of 2100 Chinese per year had entered Canada through British Columbia. The British Columbia Legislature pointed out that New Zealand and New South Wales (in Australia) had passed head taxes of $100 and $500 respectively and were allowing only one Chinese per 50 tons of ship’s weight.

Canada’s federal government again disallowed the legislation and advised British Columbia not to put Japanese and Chinese together in their legislation since Canada and Britain had too much trade with Japan. Japanese and Chinese sought to escape legislation directed at them by becoming naturalized.

The British Columbia legislature became determined to continue to pass Oriental legislation until the federal and British authorities “came to their senses”. In response to British Columbia’s Natal Act (a reference to Natal, South Africa, not to birth) which required Oriental immigrants to pass a test to find out if they could read and write English, and which would also prevent Orientals from being naturalized, Prime Minister Laurier introduced a new Immigration Act in 1900. It raised the head tax from $50 to $100 and disallowed British Columbia’s Natal Act. To placate British Columbia, Laurier promised a Royal Commission on Oriental Immigration.

In 1902, the federal government had disallowed 13 British Columbia Oriental bills. In response, the British Columbia legislature re-enacted all 13 of the bills again in 1903. However, when frustrated British Columbians asked Premier James Dunsmuir, whose coal mines benefitted from cheap Chinese labour, to take British Columbia’s concerns to the foot of the British throne at coronation ceremonies for the new King, Dunsmuir refused. In fact, he reacted contemptuously to labour’s requests for higher wages, prohibition of Orientals, union labels on manufactured goods, the 8-hour day, the 6-day week and the abolition of the Senate. He shut down two of his mines.

Gentlemen Agreement

The “Gentlemen’s Agreement” in Canada

Introduction

Because British Columbia faced the Pacific Ocean, it drew many of its non–British newcomers from Asia, including Japan. Although the first known Japanese person to emigrate to Canada, Manzo Nagano, settled in the province in 1877, Japanese immigrants did not begin arriving in appreciable numbers until 1900. By 1914, however, only 10,000 Japanese had settled in the whole of Canada, by far the largest number in British Columbia.

Japan limited the number of males who could emigrate to this country to 400 a year, thereby becoming the only nation to specifically control the movement of its people to Canada. As a consequence, for several years thereafter most of the immigrants from Japan were women who had come to join their husbands. In 1928, Canada and Japan revised the gentlemen’s agreement of 1907 to restrict Japanese immigration to Canada to 150 persons annually, a quota that was rarely met.

The first gentleman was a member of a Japanese parliamentary delegation seeking amendment of British Columbia’s oppressive policies towards immigration from Asia.

The first wave of Japanese immigrants, called Issei, arrived between 1877 and 1928. Prior to 1907, most Japanese settlers were young men. In that year, at Canada’s insistence, Japan limited the number of males who could emigrate to this country to 400 a year, thereby becoming the only nation to specifically control the movement of its people to Canada. As a consequence, for several years thereafter most of the immigrants from Japan were women who had come to join their husbands. In 1928, Canada and Japan revised the gentlemen’s agreement of 1907 to restrict Japanese immigration to Canada to 150 persons annually, a quota that was rarely met. The Issei were invariably young and came from poor and overcrowded fishing and farming villages on the islands of Honshu and Kyushu. Most settled in or near Vancouver and Victoria, in fishing villages and pulp towns along the Pacific coast, and on farms in the Fraser Valley.

“Gentlemen’s Agreement” (1907 and 1928)

The Gentlemen’s Agreement was a response to the 1907 anti-Asian riots in Vancouver. Internment and relocation in World War II; deportation of many at the end of the War. In its policies regarding Japanese in Canada, the government followed the lead of the United States.

Exclusion Act

Exclusion Act in Canada

The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 stipulated that every person of Chinese origin in Canada, irrespective of citizenship, was required to register with the government within twelve months after the act came into force, and to obtain a certificate of such registration. Those who failed to do so would be fine $500 or imprisonment for up to twelve months, or both.
The Act also specified that those Chinese who wanted to leave the country had to register before doing so. Those who failed to register would be treated as new immigrants seeking entry upon their return. Essentially the act stopped any future immigration of Chinese into Canada, and legalized the inferior status of those already in the country.

While the Chinese Canadians made strenuous efforts to stop the Act from passing, the speed at which the government passed the bill in the House took them by surprise. Ironically, Canada celebrated Dominion Day on July 1, while Chinese in Canada called it “Humiliation Day”.

“It may be very right indeed to separate a man by law from his wife and family if he belongs to a race whose increase in the country would be disastrous to those already in occupation of it; especially if such intruding race be very prolific and very difficult to assimilate; and by reason of a more meagre standard of living capable of undoing the masses of those to whom such a country belongs. But aside from all that, the Chinese cannot rightly be said to be separated by any Canadian law from their wives and children in China. They are free to go back to their wives and children any time, and God speed them!” MacInnes, Oriental occupation of British Columbia, p.12,13

During the period of exclusion, only 12 Chinese were admitted to Canada as immigrants; ten of them belonged to privilege exempted classes. However, in the same period, 61,213 Chinese registered for departure, returning back to China. In fact, between 1921 and 1930, 59,000 Chinese registered for leave out of Canada. Many of them were middle-aged or older, and had no desire to reside in the country.

Immigration Act of 1910

Immigration Act of 1910 in Canada

Summary

May be excluded from immigrating to Canada:
1.”Those physically, mentally or morally unfit whose exclusion was provided for by Act of Parliament last session”.
2.”Those belonging to nationalities unlikely to assimilate and who consequently prevent the building up of a united nation of people of similar customs and ideals”.
3.”Those who from their mode of life and occupations are likely to crowd into urban centers and bring about a state of congestion which might result in unemployment and a lowering of the standard of our national life”.