You've just identified one of the many things that I believe Canadians see as a value that distinguishes us from our friends to the south.

Whether that's fair or not is something else entirely. But I think it's true that, generally speaking, Americans see individualism as one of their defining values, which directly informs a whole host of other derived values (belief in the power of capitalism, distrust of government, etc).

My experience (for what it's worth) is that Canadians, on average, may value those things, but I don't believe they are seen as a defining element of the Canadian identity.

For me, nothing demonstrates that more than Canadian rejection of the "cultural melting pot" of the US in favour of "multiculturalism". I went to school in the age where we still sang God Save the Queen and recited the Lord's Prayer every morning, so it's going a fair ways back, but I remember actually being taught multiculturalism in school (which, as the perversity of this sentence shows, was perhaps an academic exercise). I distinctly remember being told over and over again: We are not American. We do not value a society with a single culture that absorbs other cultures. We value a society of many cultures that live together in harmony.

I think you will see a lot of variation wrt things like individualism in Canadian culture. For example, it is probably a strongly held belief in places like Alberta. But maybe in the small cities in Quebec or on the east coast, you're going to get a lot more responsibility for community. The string that holds it together, though, is the acceptance for a variety of insular cultures.

As other posters have mention, Canada limits immigration. I suspect that it would run into very similar issues to what the Australians have had to deal with in the past 30 years if it didn't. I always find it strange that my adopted home of Japan is probably one of the easiest countries in the world to emigrate to, but because of it's very strong mono-culture, immigrants generally do not stay. In spite of my upbringing, I enjoy living in a mono-culture -- a very embarrassing admission, and I invite all true Canadians to come and spit on me ;-)

I don't want to spit on you (ew), but am interested in meeting some of my fellow Canadians living here in Japan.

If you (or any other Canadians reading this) are in Tokyo and interested in comparing notes over coffee, please drop me a line (email in profile).

I was raised Presbyterian. We've always sponsored refugees, fed the hungry, did missionary work, etc. Young me just thought that's what Christians do. We certainly didn't talk or brag about it; that was very gauche.

It wasn't until I was much older that I figured out my congregation was considered liberal.

There are more liberal Christians than not. But we're not vocal or organized. So the fruitcakes have way more influence.

--

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/yazoo/unmarked.html

  "He who shouts the loudest
  Is the one who's in control
  We who never listen
  Are the ones who pay the toll"

We've seen this done with Somalian refugees in Minneapolis, for example, with the result that Minneapolis has one of the worst rates of rape in the entire U.S. (They have the 4th highest rate.) [1] This, in fact, is identical to the sorts of problems now facing Europe, and the actual reason for the "growing climate of resentment".

One of the key success factors in this Canadian experiment seems to be one of cultural adjustment. This particular example gives an anecdote of a statement (and acceptance) of values; "we expect you to work and support yourself" / "she lives here, she must know what is right". This tends to be another area where government tax-and-dump fails, as the same officials who want a bureaucracy-only solution also believe that American cultural values, such as they are, are irrelevant at best.

Voicing disagreement of uncontrolled ingest of refugees isn't about being cold-hearted. It is rational concern for our own children and families, and the character of our neighborhoods.

Talk to me about a plan for sponsorship like this one that includes acculturation; I'd vote for a tax increase on my income for that kind of a plan.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

I would not consider the Mormons socially liberal but they do plenty in that vein https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-...

Active, rather than nominal Christians do plenty of that kind of stuff, whether they're conservative or liberal denominations. In the long run the liberal denominations seem unlikely to be relevant. Liberal so-called mainstream Protestant groups have been bleeding members since the 80's at the latest.

This represents much of the church in the USA that is out of the mainline. I don't know who exactly you are calling "fruitcakes" or what you mean by that, but while I've seen some in the rank-and-file be prejudiced, I've also seen leadership speak very strongly in support of caring for refugees.

People are people. I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out. In fact our own government put the brakes on the sponsorship program early this year.

I think that's incredibly unfair and I'm frankly astonished you'd interpret their actions that way.

How many people step in when their loved one is failing because they care about them and want to help, and don't want them to be discouraged if things go poorly?

That's exactly the dynamic at play, here. In fact the article goes out of its way to point that out.

It's such a common human experience that I can't help but wonder if you're going out of your way to view their actions in a negative light.

As for the rest, well, these are my own impressions based on my life as a Canadian, and my extensive exposure to American culture... take them with a hefty grain of salt. shrug

I think the sponsors are good people. But I disagree that they're good in some kind of uniquely Canadian way. These are empty-nesters searching for a new family just like these ones right across the border in Buffalo or Bellingham or Burlington. Just look at overseas adoptions in the United States.

> Mr. Nunn, 65 and recently retired, said he was looking for “an indulgence” to mark the event. In Huntsville, an ad on a bulletin board for a motorboat caught his eye. Along with the boat ad, he also took a flyer from a refugee group.

> After reading both on a flight to Florida, Mr. Nunn decided to make the donation rather than purchase the boat — even though it “looked pretty cool,” he said.

> “A fancy trip, a car or boat, kind of diminish and memories fade,” said Mr. Nunn, who had never supported any refugee group. “This refugee effort will have effects that go on for generations. Where is the best value, where is the best return? I threw away the boat ad.”

These are wealthy people looking for the most meaningful and impactful way to spend their time and money. It's not about self-aggrandisation and it's astonishing to me that someone could interpret it as such.

By the way, about:

> I think there are many Americans who would be happy to sponsor a refugee family (and indeed many have donated towards sponsorship costs for Canadians), but their government doesn't let them. Likewise there are a lot of Canadians that are virulently opposed to refugees coming here and getting government assistance after their private sponsorship assistance runs out.

Well, back in 2015 when the Conservatives were in power in Canada and the Syrian crisis brought fresh horrors every day, it turned out that the Conservative government denied a lot of refugee applications, including that of Aylan Kurdi's family. Canadians said enough is enough and voted in someone who promised to bring in a lot more refugees--which he promptly did. Americans, in contrast, and with the full benefit of seeing the Canadian refugee situation, decided to go the other way. I think it's quite clear what message they sent.

The results are obvious and the effort is a success, even if the ultimate outcome remains in question. The ultimate outcome always remains in question for us all.

I don't know how much you know about Americans, but as a Canadian I don't really see what you see, and it seems a bit condescending.

Personally I think that it's cruel (even if the intentions are good) to play saviour for a few hundred thousand people while an entire nation suffers. We should be investing in their ability to sustain their own society, not placing their failed society's burdens on our own. On top of this, the enormous cultural incompatibility is already breeding flaming resentment in communities with many landed refugees. If we keep this up without thinking about how to do it right, we will get the worst possible outcomes.

Hence use of phrases like "I believe" and "I think" and "My experience (for what it's worth)".

Was that not disclaimer enough for you?

I don't know how much you know about Americans, but as a Canadian I don't really see what you see, and it seems a bit condescending.

Certainly not the intent, and I hope it didn't come across that way.

I do think it's true that Canadians and Americans, as a whole, have an overlapping but different set of... rather than values, let's call them priorities.

If making that claim and observing the differences is "condescending", I don't know what to tell you. Certainly I wasn't attempting to ascribe a judgement to those priorities. I was simply highlighting that I believe they're different, and that the "age of individualism" is not a universal experience.

Of course, you're more than welcome to disagree with that, or disagree with the very concept of a national identity or commonly held set of priorities.

Personally I think that it's cruel to play saviour for a few hundred thousand people while an entire nation suffers. We should be investing in their ability to sustain their own society

Why not both?

not placing their failed society's burdens on our own.

What was that about being condescending?

Don't get me wrong there is nothing that hinders poor Muslims from Syria to adapt to and eventually contribute in Canada but you just need a look at many europea countries to see the issues statistically it's quite depressing. (One a positive note though muslim women are some of the best educated in many countries of Europe)

The US as far as I am aware is still the country who have found the best model for integrating people from other cultures into their country.

This is not because the US is a melting pot as many like to claim but rather a tossed salad.

No other country allow people to maintain their own culture while still forcing them to contribute to society if they want to make it.

In the 1980s, during the Lebanese civil war, the US under Reagan blocked Lebanese immigration, which led many of them to Canada. I believe we took in tens of thousands.

As a teenager, ignorant of this, I never understood why we had so many Lebanese restaurants and other businesses (Japanese and Chinese were literally the only other "ethnic" cuisines). I have no idea how their experience was compared to the Syrians in this article, but I know they have thrived, maintained their culture, and contributed greatly to our country.

As other comments have noted, Canada is far from perfect, but I believe as a whole we have embraced pluralism as the path to success as a nation.

It's not about being perfect but about being honest.

So while you might say Canada is great its not as rosy as your charismatic minister might want to paint it.

One challenge with immigration is the development of ethnic communities (not bad in and of themselves) which can prevent complete assimilation. This sometimes leads to hard feelings on both sides and makes it hard for immigrants and descendants to truly "belong, prosper or contribute" to society at large. The problem becomes worse when you throw generational poverty in the mix (in cases of immigrants from lower income regions).

As bad as public schools may be they do provide one valuable feature in my opinion. They promote assimilation.

It shouldn't be at the expense of other students though.

If there is an influx of students that aren't proficient in English, and the school is not prepared for this, then other students will suffer.

ESL classes are crucial to proper assimilation. Of course, that increases costs. So, either funding decreases for other students or taxes increase.

I just think if we are going to have large scale immigration this is worth funding somehow as I believe in the value of assimilation.

And to play devil's advocate, how does the overall cost (monetary, time, interruption, etc.) of doing this compare to the cost of "fixing" the situation in their home country? Granted it may not be feasible politically, but inviting in a bunch of refugees is a political minefield, too.

Most of the illegal immigrants are travelers who overstay their visas often with little funds or connections. It hasn't caused society to break down or become an unmanageable problem. In fact it is so unnoticeable that most people don't even know the extent of it.

But yet refugees, the people who need help the most, are singled out as being a potential threat to society.

It's why China is so afraid of destabilizing or allowing North Korea to collapse. Refugee waves have caused immense problems pouring out of Venezuela (and into other poor or semi-poor bordering nations completely unable to deal with it). Countries like Jordan, Ethiopia and Lebanon have had vast refugee problems that have overwhelmed them very substantially.

In fact, if you go down the list of countries with the most refugees, they're all countries that are among the least equipped financially to handle it: Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Uganda, Chad.

Turkey has taken in perhaps two million refugees in just the last six years. They have a median income around 1/5th to 1/7th that of Canada or the US. They're completely unable to absorb that many refugees. Lebanon has 200+ refugees per 1,000 citizens currently, the notion that that isn't a problem is absurd, it's the very definition of overwhelmed.

It's anything but ridiculous, it's a not uncommon history of refugee waves spanning thousands of years.

Are there numbers for this compared to border hoppers?

1. Do these people have any knowledge of history? Both Canada and the USA have sustained far, far, far higher rates of immigration than what we're seeing from Syria and prospered mightily because of it. In the 70s Canada was happily letting in a quarter million people a year. (At the time the US was also practically giving away citizenship.) These immigrants, mostly from Asia, contributed enormously to North America's wealth and stability. And this is not a new pattern. We see the same thing over and over. Which makes you wonder -- has there ever been a case where immigrants "overwhelmed" a nation state?

2. To that end, just consider the numbers, even for a moment. We're talking about thousands in a nation of 35 million. And yet somehow these individuals -- poor, isolated, without knowing the language, and isolated from their own families -- pose a security threat.

3. Most importantly at the end of the day basic common sense indicates that immigration is almost an economic positive for the host country. Even if you suspect that you're not getting the best and the brightest from another country what you are getting are individuals often in their prime earning years where some other country has paid to raise them up until this point. The economics here are pretty clear but nobody likes to talk about it. (For example, take a look at Britain. Brexit or no, Britain will need to import millions of laborers over the next decade or, frankly, it will go broke.)

I always bring this up because the language around immigration is so far-fetched, so disconnected from reality and history, but it also never changes, in fact few things are so predictable.