Although sexual sterilization is often considered a paradigmatic eugenic practice, immigration policies have also provided a central way in which eugenic ideas were implemented. To understand the relationship between immigration and eugenics, it is necessary to understand why eugenics became popular in the first place; eugenicists aimed to eradicate “undesirable” traits and thereby produce a “better,” “healthier” population (and, consequently, a “fitter” human race) by both preventing certain groups of people from reproducing and encouraging others to have progeny. There was a common public perception in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in North America that social problems such as drug and alcohol abuse, crime and prostitution, certain diseases, mental illness, labour unrest, and other issues were increasing at a rapid and potentially dangerous rate (Caulfield 1996, 69). Most of these social problems were symptoms of urbanization and inequitable economic growth – the results of the rapid arrival of the modern era – and represented structural or social problems. However, the middle and upper classes (which drove public policy) failed to see these problems as deeper, social issues and instead identified intrinsic human weaknesses as causes of social degeneracy. (Caulfield 1996, 69). The immigrant class was seen as disproportionally afflicted by such intrinsic human weaknesses; the Canadian National Committee for Mental Health in Alberta and Manitoba reported that a “‘considerable proportion’ of crimes were committed by ‘unsound’ individuals…recruited out of all reasonable proportion from the immigrant class’” (Caulfield 1996, 70).

The Idea of Eugenic Contamination
Also common during this time was a belief in the theory of degeneracy, which posited that a wide variety of mental and neurological issues were the result of a single hereditary condition affecting the central nervous system. From here, it was a short leap to conclude that poverty, criminality, addictions, and other undesirable behaviours were also symptomatic of a type of genetically based mental disorder, which came to be called “feeble-mindedness” (Caulfield 1996, 69).

The eugenics movement pointed to two new, intimately connected sources of genetic “contamination” to account for the perceived increase in social ills. One was a difference in birth rates – specifically, a declining birth rate amongst “desirable” middle and upper class citizens and a higher birth rate amongst the “undesirable” poor, disabled, and members of other marginalized groups (Caulfield 1996, 69) - and the other was immigration.

The Relationship Between Eugenics and Immigration in Canada
Although Canada’s settlement and industrialization had depended on a steady stream of immigrants, original settlers had been mainly French and British. While immigration policies continued to favour immigrants from these places, the early twentieth century also saw immigration from ‘Othered’ places such as Asia and Eastern Europe in part because of pressure from Canadian businessmen who wanted the cheap labour that immigrants from Asia and the poorer areas of Europe could provide (Wayland 1997, 37). Originally, these workers were recruited with the expectation that they would return home once their work had been completed, but when they didn’t, social commentators began to view them as a threat to Canada’s unity.

Canada was a young country and predominantly Anglo-Saxon at this time, and was still developing its national identity and place in the British Empire. Many Anglo-Saxon Canadians believed that Canada was committing ‘race suicide’ by letting a rising number of ‘others’ into the country (Dowbiggin 1995, 607). This fear was compounded by the fact that new immigrants continued to attend ‘Old World’ churches and speak their native languages, raising fears that they were not assimilating to a Canadian way of life (Wayland 1997, 39).

The visibility of new immigrants, and the racial antipathy felt towards them by many native-born Canadians, “provided a ready vehicle for popularizing the sterilization proposal” (Caulfield 1996, 70), which was zealously implemented in Alberta. It did not take long for advocates of eugenics to forward theories asserting that Asia and Eastern Europe offered inferior contributions to the country’s gene pool. For example, J. S. Woodsworth, a key member of the Bureau of Social Research (created by the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to investigate the connections between various social issues) warned that “the declining ‘quality’ of European immigrants [would] translate to a public health crisis” (Grekul et al. 2004, 361) (also see Woodworth 1909).

Immigration Restrictions as a Tool of Eugenics
Canada’s immigration restrictions in the early twentieth century have been recognized as eugenic practices in so far as they attempted to restrict the entry of “inferior” races into Canada’s gene pool. The first iteration of these policies appeared in 1902, when a Royal Commission formed to investigate the matter raised alarm about increasing numbers of Chinese immigrants. As a result of the commission, the federal government undertook strong measures to curtail the number of new immigrants allowed into Canada from China (Wayland 1997, 37), and eventually from all Asian countries as well as immigration of African Americans from the United States.

During this time, medical examinations became a common part of the immigration process at Canadian ports and entry points between Canada and the United States. Although restrictions barring the entry of “insane, destitute and disabled” immigrants had been in place as far back as the Immigration Act of 1869, medical tests now gave inspectors the authority to turn away those with perceived disabilities and shortcomings at the border (Dowbiggin 1995, 606). Some argued that inspections at the point of departure would have been even more effective (see Dowbiggin 1995 and Menzies 1998).

Immigration restrictions became even stricter (at least on paper) during World War I and the interwar years, continuing through the Great Depression (for an overview and more details regarding how such restrictions were implemented in practice, see Knowles 1992). The Immigration Act of 1910 barred the entry of “immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements from Canada.” Not satisfied with these parameters, anti-immigration lobbies supported by politicians, farmers, labour groups, and the medical profession pushed the government to limit immigration to British and American-born capitalists (Wayland 1997, 39-41). Canada would not re-open its doors until 1948 – and even then, Prime Minister Mackenzie King did so with the firm intention of selecting immigrants whose presence would not make a “fundamental alteration” to the character of the Canadian nation (Wayland 1997, 41).

The Effect of Eugenics on New Canadians
This hostile anti-immigrant climate impacted the lives of new Canadians as well as prospective new arrivals. Canada’s 1906 Immigration Act formalized parameters for deportation, particularly of the “mentally ill.” Immigrants who ended up in any publicly funded charitable institution within two years of arrival were eligible for deportation (Dowbiggin 1995, 616; also see Menzies 1998). Partially as a result of these provisions, over 30,000 foreign-born residents were deported during this time.

New immigrants who remained in Canada were also disproportionately affected by domestic eugenics programs. In the West, this was particularly true of sterilization programs. The only two provinces in Canada to pass formal sterilization legislation were Alberta and British Columbia; both provinces were settled somewhat later than the Eastern provinces and by a significantly higher percentage of recent immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe (Wayland 1997, 39). This legislation was most vigorously implemented in Alberta: between the passage of the Sexual Sterilization Act in 1928 and its repealing in 1972, the Eugenics Board ordered the sterilization of 2,832 individuals. Members of visible ethnic minorities, like Aboriginal Canadians, as well as recent Eastern European immigrants, were over-represented amongst those sterilized (Caulfield 1996, 61; Grekul et al. 2004, 365).

-Jacalyn Ambler

• Cauldfield, Timothy and Gerald Robertson. “Eugenic Policies in Alberta: From the Systematic to the Systemic?” Alberta Law Review 35 1996: 59-79.

• Dowbiggin, Ian. “’Keeping this Young Country Sane’: C. K. Clarke, Immigration Restriction, and Canadian Psychiatry, 1890 – 1925.” The Canadian Historical Review 76 1995: 598 – 627.

• Grekul, Jana, Harvey Krahn and David Odynak. “Sterilizing the ‘Feeble-minded’: Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929 – 1972.” Journal of Historical Sociology 17 2004: 358 – 384.

• Wayland, Sarah V. “Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity in Canada.” International Journal on Group Rights 5 1997: 33 – 58.

• Knowles, Valerie. (1992). Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-1990. Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press.

• Menzies, Robert. (1998). “Governing Mentalities: The Deportation of ‘Insane’ and ‘Feebleminded’ Immigrants Out of British Columbia From Confederation to World War II.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society, vol. 13, no. 2. 135–173.

• Woodsworth, J. S. (1909). Strangers Within Our Gates: Or, Coming Canadians. Toronto, ON: F. C. Stephenson. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/strangerswithino00wooduoft