You are not wrong there Milo.Milo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:18 pmMy guess would be that Australia has their own version of this!neverfail wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 2:46 pmCongratulations Steve. Wishing you and betrothed a life of future contentment.
For a footloose Brit to settle down in any of Canada's four western provinces appears to be a good choice. There you gain virtually all of the advantages of settling in the United States but minus having to dodge all of the flying bullets in a country where every homicidal maniac has a constitutional guarantee of the right to gun ownership.
And congratulations Steve.
Australia has, ever since the pains of its founding decades were overcome and a prosperous new colony emerged, been like a drawcard for immigrants from the UK. To attract suitable immigrant settlers we did something out here that they never had to do in the United States and I doubt whether they ever did in Canada. Reflecting the fact that 1. our country was located half a world away from Britain (resulting in higher travel costs than for those who made the "short jump across the North Atlantic" instead) and 2. we had competition from the North American pair for suitable immigrant-settlers: from 1831 onward Australian governments during times of Labour shortages resorted to part-paying the fares of would-be immigrants of suitable character who were nevertheless insufficiently pecunious to pay their own fares in full as in incentive for these to choose Australia as a land to migrate to.
That fare subsidy however applied ONLY to immigrants from the British Isles. If you originated from anywhwere else you still had to pay your own fare in full.
This tradition continued on until the year 1973, when the UK joined the EU and as part of the cost had to re-orient its immigration policy to favour citizens of the other EU member states. Of course no Australian government was willing to continue the formerly priveleged entry to Australia that British citizens had previiously enjoyed while British governments denied us ours to their country.
It is also the reason why until the mid-1970's immigration into Australia was disproportionally Anglo-Celtic.
Milo: some years ago I recall some university into the US investigated where the immigrant ancestors of the Americans of today came from - to determine the exact ethnic mix of the USA. They discovered that by far the biggest minority of 'ethnic " Americans were the Germans - Steve Foerster's crowd .
The second biggest were the Irish (Joe Biden's bunch ) The English (bona-fide Anglos) were only the third largest and in raw numbers only a fraction of the demographic size of the German (or Teutonic) Americans. The fourth largest were Americans of African ancestry.
Were one to do a similar assessment of the population of Australia the likely result would be that the English are still the biggest minority in the population followed by the Irish. Third in line would likely be a toss-up between the Scots and Italians.
Noting the difference between the ethnic make-up of Australia versus the USA the long-term consequences of distance from sources of immigrants combined with that old practice of favouring immigrants from the British Isles over those sourced from foreign countries really shows up, don't they?
As for Canada well, as we all know the French were there ahead of the English.