British Columbian Independence

[Gloominary]

I would like to see British Columbia, my province, become its own country, severing most of its political ties with Canada, as well as the UK.
I'd also like to see it mostly, or wholly socioeconomically self-sufficient.
It shouldn't be a commonwealth of the UK, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on are, it should be fully independent.
The sole official language ought to be English, French shouldn't be an official language, because there's hardly any French people in British Columbia.
As for immigration, we should import as many whites as possible from Europe and elsewhere until our population is about 90% white, after that, we should hardly import anyone from anywhere.
As for the environment, I'm not sure how much of British Columbia has been developed.
If more than 10% of British Columbia has been developed, we should rewild until about !0% of British Columbia has been developed.

[WendyDarling]

Nice dream.

[phyllo]

As for immigration, we should import as many people as possible from Europe and only Europe until our population is about 90% white, after that, we should hardly import anyone from anywhere.

In 2016, the total population was 4,648,055 and the visible minority population was 1,651,820. Assuming that the visible minority population stays constant, then to have a 90% white population would require a total population of about 16,518,200. That means you need almost 12 million white immigrants.

That much immigration would have a significant impact on the environment, the culture and the job and housing situation.

Do you really want that many immigrants? Be careful what you wish for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... h_Columbia

[Gloominary]

Nice dream.

Ain't it tho?

[Gloominary]

As for immigration, we should import as many people as possible from Europe and only Europe until our population is about 90% white, after that, we should hardly import anyone from anywhere.

In 2016, the total population was 4,648,055 and the visible minority population was 1,651,820. Assuming that the visible minority population stays constant, then to have a 90% white population would require a total population of about 16,518,200. That means you need almost 12 million white immigrants.

That much immigration would have a significant impact on the environment, the culture and the job and housing situation.

Do you really want that many immigrants? Be careful what you wish for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... h_Columbia

Perhaps 90% is a little lofty considering, we also want to protect our/the environment.
A 75%-80% white-non-white ratio would be far easier to achieve, we'd only need another 1.5-3 million whites.

[barbarianhorde]

They should hang you for treason.

[Gloominary]

They should hang you for treason.

You need to be taken out back and shot.

[Gloominary]

Maybe new non-white immigrants (as in, haven't lived here for 3 years or more) and/or able-bodied long-term unemployed non-white immigrants (as in, haven't worked in 3 years or more) should be given a year to get their things and go back to their country of origin...or wherever, some place else.
We could financially compensate them for their trouble.
And if they refuse, they could be rounded up and deported.
That'd further reduce the non-white population while benefitting, or at least not adversely impacting the economy.

I mean I don't altogether dislike non-whites, it's just there's way too many of them.

[phyllo]

And if they refuse, they could be rounded up and deported.

That's not a statement of Canadian values. I can't be certain but I don't think it reflects BC values either.

[Gloominary]

And if they refuse, they could be rounded up and deported.

That's not a statement of Canadian values. I can't be certain but I don't think it reflects BC values either.

It probably would've been if I made it in the mid 20th century or earlier.

[phyllo]

And if they refuse, they could be rounded up and deported.

That's not a statement of Canadian values. I can't be certain but I don't think it reflects BC values either.

It probably would've been if I made it in the mid 20th century or earlier.

Aside for the shameful episodes during the First and Second World Wars, I don't think that it was the attitude at that time. War made them fearful, but it didn't last.

[Gloominary]

In 1885, under pressure from British Columbia, a federal law was passed restricting Chinese immigration through the imposition of a head tax (which lasted until 1923) – the first of a series of such measures directed at the Chinese that continued until the late 1940s.

In 1946 the formal ban on Chinese immigration was ended. In 1952, a new Immigration Act continued Canada's discriminatory policies against non-European and non-American immigrants. However, in 1962 Ottawa ended racial discrimination as a feature of the immigration system. In 1967, a points system was introduced to rank potential immigrants for eligibility. Race, colour, or nationality were not factors in the new system; rather, work skills, education levels, language ability (in speaking French or English), and family connections became the main considerations in deciding who could immigrate.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigration-policy

Before the 1960s, Canada's immigration policy was designed to keep the country majority white.

[phyllo]

In 1885, under pressure from British Columbia, a federal law was passed restricting Chinese immigration through the imposition of a head tax (which lasted until 1923) – the first of a series of such measures directed at the Chinese that continued until the late 1940s.

In 1946 the formal ban on Chinese immigration was ended. In 1952, a new Immigration Act continued Canada's discriminatory policies against non-European and non-American immigrants. However, in 1962 Ottawa ended racial discrimination as a feature of the immigration system. In 1967, a points system was introduced to rank potential immigrants for eligibility. Race, colour, or nationality were not factors in the new system; rather, work skills, education levels, language ability (in speaking French or English), and family connections became the main considerations in deciding who could immigrate.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigration-policy

Before the 1960s, Canada's immigration policy was designed to keep the country majority white.

Yeah. Nothing in those quotes says anything about rounding up people and deporting them. Which is what you are proposing : "And if they refuse, they could be rounded up and deported."

[Gloominary]

In 1885, under pressure from British Columbia, a federal law was passed restricting Chinese immigration through the imposition of a head tax (which lasted until 1923) – the first of a series of such measures directed at the Chinese that continued until the late 1940s.

In 1946 the formal ban on Chinese immigration was ended. In 1952, a new Immigration Act continued Canada's discriminatory policies against non-European and non-American immigrants. However, in 1962 Ottawa ended racial discrimination as a feature of the immigration system. In 1967, a points system was introduced to rank potential immigrants for eligibility. Race, colour, or nationality were not factors in the new system; rather, work skills, education levels, language ability (in speaking French or English), and family connections became the main considerations in deciding who could immigrate.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/immigration-policy

Before the 1960s, Canada's immigration policy was designed to keep the country majority white.

Yeah. Nothing in those quotes says anything about rounding up people and deporting them. Which is what you are proposing : "And if they refuse, they could be rounded up and deported."

They didn't have many non-white immigrants, so they didn't need to deport any, but if they did, they probably would have, as Canada, and BC were demonstrably founded on preserving and protecting whiteness.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I have a lot of family in BC and love it there. I really do like the idea of smaller countries. You get more accountability - degrees of separation go down - and policies can be tailor-fit, at least to a greater degree than in larger countries. Different regions need different policies, guidelines, ways of doing things dependent on geography, local culture, the stronger industries and more. It is amazing that when any region or nation wants to pull out of a larger conglomeration of nations or a specific large nation, this is seen as ONLY about race nor nationalism. But what is at the very least also happening is a choice between a large nation and a smaller nation. Not nationalism vs. its absence. The further the people in power are from their constituents, the greater their distance from feedback. Their kids will never be in the same schools as the people they are affecting, as one example of how one can be interconnected, but where the chances go down the larger the national unit. A connected problem is that that distance is more easily exploited by corporations: via lobbying, campaign contributions, revolving door hiring with government and the destruction of oversight through this last process.

This is never made an issue in mainstream media as far as I can tell. That there might be, for example, democratic concerns about being part of huge conglomerate nations, and valid concerns. This is especially ironic in the US where you have a nation founded on splitting off from a VERY VERY CLOSE CULTURE in England, because the region that wanted to secede felt that it was not being treated fairly and wanted control of its own rule. And yet such concerns are never considered or considered a valid part of say, Brexit.

Despite having Canadian relatives who have been incredible at procreating, I know the situation less well in Canada. I do know Canada never had this clear severing from Britain, though they are not the kind of controlled colony they once were.

We have little trouble understanding why a Soviet block country wanted to return to its original nation. And sure, I am not arguing that being in the USSR was the same as, say, BC experiences being part of Canada. But many of the problems are similar, if less severe, sometimes by orders of magnitude.

We are fairly tribal as humans. And I do not necessarily connect this to race, but the greater the distance from others, the easier for them to be considered statistical entities, the less concern we have and this is also true for leaders, elected or not.

And this need have nothing to do with being better or hating anyone. BC could have very good reasons for seceding and having a smaller, step closer to more direct democracy, nation, without it entailing that it hates Albertians, who may also benefit from being a smaller in some ways similar nation.

This is so taboo in so many contexts that one is immediately considered hateful for even suggesting the idea. I don't share the OP's urge to hit some kind of ethnic levels. I think it is far better to just move forward from where you are. In the context of the thread, I am guessing that this will get the primary focus from the people on the left of center and even some on the right. To me this ends up baby and bathwater.

Why is it that the left cannot even consider moves that actually allow for more accountability and direct influence by groups on their own lives?

Why is, in a different context, THE EU, not considered a nation, and that wanting it to grow and absorb other nations - and get them to align with NATO, The World Bank, anti-russian policies, for example, the kinds of rapacious 'free' trade capitalism that does not allow citizens in their own country to democratically influence a wide range of policies including banking, land use, social services, restrictions on the power of corporations and more? That's a nation with a specfic, albeit rule based rather than custom based, culture? But it is a culture that the left has been and still is critical of...

and yet, Brexit is necessarily evil, there is nothing possibly beneficial in it and large nations are not nations so it is not nationalism to want more and more of the world to be absorbed in this nation.

And this is me with my roots in the left looking at an in certain areas utterly brain dead left reaction.

It seems like everyone tries to find out these days - what does my team think about this? - and then vote with the team. This benefits the people with real power, who love the left and right snapping at each other and being smug and basically allowing those with power to keep consolidating power in fewer and fewer hands.

Why not allow the tools of analysis around power from both the right and the left, and use BOTH SETS OF TOOLS to look at what power is doing?

[Gloominary]

@Karpel

I have a lot of family in BC and love it there.

Born, raised and been here most of my life, for better/worse.

I really do like the idea of smaller countries.

Same here.
I think there's too much globalization, materialism, sociopolitical and economic codependence and squandering of precious resources, I'd like to see more re-localization, moderation, independence and conservation of resources.
Nations, especially Australia, Canada, the US, Brazil, the EU, Russia, China and India are far too big, and there's too much interaction between them, I'd like to see more isolationism.
Bigger and more isn't necessarily better or merrier.
We are much too dependent on technology and one another, when we lose (some of) it, and we will, we'll be helpless.
We've grown too sophisticated, too fast for our own good.

You get more accountability - degrees of separation go down - and policies can be tailor-fit, at least to a greater degree than in larger countries. Different regions need different policies, guidelines, ways of doing things dependent on geography, local culture, the stronger industries and more.

Excellent point, government, and business have grown too big and so too distant and detached from what they intend to govern and manage.

It is amazing that when any region or nation wants to pull out of a larger conglomeration of nations or a specific large nation, this is seen as ONLY about race nor nationalism.

The powers that be know localization is not necessarily about race, ethnicity or even culture, they just don't care, they have an ideology they think works for them, most of all financially, and they're sticking to their guns.
They have their hearts set on a corporatist, globalist, transhumanist order, and they will stop at nothing, absolutely nothing until its realization.
They will smear and slander as much as they can possibly get away with, they will continue to lie, cheat, bribe and extort like they've always done.
Assassinate, if need be, there's no lengths they won't go to, so long as they think they can get away with it...perhaps even if they suspect they can't, if they get sufficiently desperate.

But what is at the very least also happening is a choice between a large nation and a smaller nation. Not nationalism vs. its absence. The further the people in power are from their constituents, the greater their distance from feedback. Their kids will never be in the same schools as the people they are affecting, as one example of how one can be interconnected, but where the chances go down the larger the national unit. A connected problem is that that distance is more easily exploited by corporations: via lobbying, campaign contributions, revolving door hiring with government and the destruction of oversight through this last process.

Excellent points.

This is never made an issue in mainstream media as far as I can tell. That there might be, for example, democratic concerns about being part of huge conglomerate nations, and valid concerns. This is especially ironic in the US where you have a nation founded on splitting off from a VERY VERY CLOSE CULTURE in England, because the region that wanted to secede felt that it was not being treated fairly and wanted control of its own rule. And yet such concerns are never considered or considered a valid part of say, Brexit.

Mainstream progressives and conservatives are largely united on the issue of globalism, as with almost every issue, because we don't have much of a democracy, or freedom of choice.

Despite having Canadian relatives who have been incredible at procreating, I know the situation less well in Canada. I do know Canada never had this clear severing from Britain, though they are not the kind of controlled colony they once were.

We're still a British monarchy in addition to being a corporatocracy.
If BC is to do away with both Britain and Canada, we shall have to call ourselves something else other than 'British' Columbia, perhaps North Columbia, or something else altogether.
There's also an idea called Cascadia, where BC, Washington state and Oregon secede from Canada and the US respectively and form a tripartite nation state.

We have little trouble understanding why a Soviet block country wanted to return to its original nation. And sure, I am not arguing that being in the USSR was the same as, say, BC experiences being part of Canada. But many of the problems are similar, if less severe, sometimes by orders of magnitude.

Right, this is only because Russia has its own globalist ambitions, if it was fundamentally on board with ours, the west would be helping it to maintain its integrity instead of undermining it.
The west undermines the integrity of all the nations that aren't fundamentally on board with the agenda, regardless of how peaceful and prosperous they are.

We are fairly tribal as humans. And I do not necessarily connect this to race, but the greater the distance from others, the easier for them to be considered statistical entities, the less concern we have and this is also true for leaders, elected or not.

I connect it with race, ethnicity, culture and nation, in addition to proximity.

And this need have nothing to do with being better or hating anyone. BC could have very good reasons for seceding and having a smaller, step closer to more direct democracy, nation, without it entailing that it hates Albertians, who may also benefit from being a smaller in some ways similar nation.

I am all for more direct democracy, as well as the socialization, syndication, shrinking or expulsion of big business.

Preferring your tribe over another necessarily has as much to do with fear and hate, as preferring your family over another necessarily has to do with fear and hate.
Japan, China, India, Poland, well most of the world excluding the far west prefer themselves and people most like them, yet they don't fear and hate others.
Canada and the US prior to the 60s had an immigration policy designed to keep them majority white, and yet they still took issue with the Third Reich, sufficiently to go to war with it.

While I'm not altogether opposed to it, diversity isn't necessarily a strength, it can foster conflict, confusion, incohesion and incompatibility.
Furthermore It costs a ton of time, energy and resources to bring them over here, leading to the overpopulation, densification and overdevelopment of our nations.
I don't care if our GDP growth slows or ceases to grow as a result, in fact I want it to recede, because it's good for our health and the health of our/the environment.
Our GDP has grown for the last several decades consistently, and yet the middle class has shrunk anyway.
The policies in place and the directions we're heading in by and large just benefit the elite.
There's more to life than mere GDP growth, I want to conserve my tribe, our health and nature, as well as promote greater efficacy and efficiency in government.

For me, greener and more local politics fits with more racial, ethnic and cultural homogeneity rather well.

This is so taboo in so many contexts that one is immediately considered hateful for even suggesting the idea. I don't share the OP's urge to hit some kind of ethnic levels. I think it is far better to just move forward from where you are. In the context of the thread, I am guessing that this will get the primary focus from the people on the left of center and even some on the right. To me this ends up baby and bathwater.

Well aside from the race thing, you and I are in agreement about preferring more grassroots politics.

Why is it that the left cannot even consider moves that actually allow for more accountability and direct influence by groups on their own lives?

It's because the left, like the right, is controlled by the elite, as I'm sure you really know.

Why is, in a different context, THE EU, not considered a nation, and that wanting it to grow and absorb other nations - and get them to align with NATO, The World Bank, anti-russian policies, for example, the kinds of rapacious 'free' trade capitalism that does not allow citizens in their own country to democratically influence a wide range of policies including banking, land use, social services, restrictions on the power of corporations and more? That's a nation with a specfic, albeit rule based rather than custom based, culture? But it is a culture that the left has been and still is critical of...

and yet, Brexit is necessarily evil, there is nothing possibly beneficial in it and large nations are not nations so it is not nationalism to want more and more of the world to be absorbed in this nation.

And this is me with my roots in the left looking at an in certain areas utterly brain dead left reaction.

Excellent points.

It seems like everyone tries to find out these days - what does my team think about this? - and then vote with the team. This benefits the people with real power, who love the left and right snapping at each other and being smug and basically allowing those with power to keep consolidating power in fewer and fewer hands.

Why not allow the tools of analysis around power from both the right and the left, and use BOTH SETS OF TOOLS to look at what power is doing?

Right, the left and the right are just a show they put on, to distract us from empowering and emancipating ourselves, from genuinely changing course.
There are good ideas on, the fringes of both the left and right, not in the center, when it comes to peoples empowerment and emancipation, as well as the environments preservation and protection, and ultimately we need to strike some sort of balance between any polarity.
I don't regard myself as left or right, I regard myself as a fringe thinker.
I think less in terms of left and right and more in terms of what's ultimately good for people, and our/the environment.

[barbarianhorde]

I would like to see British Columbia, my province, become its own country, severing most of its political ties with Canada, as well as the UK.
I'd also like to see it mostly, or wholly socioeconomically self-sufficient.
It shouldn't be a commonwealth of the UK, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on are, it should be fully independent.
The sole official language ought to be English, French shouldn't be an official language, because there's hardly any French people in British Columbia.
As for immigration, we should import as many whites as possible from Europe and elsewhere until our population is about 90% white, after that, we should hardly import anyone from anywhere.
As for the environment, I'm not sure how much of British Columbia has been developed.
If more than 10% of British Columbia has been developed, we should rewild until about !0% of British Columbia has been developed.

Yes, great idea. Breaking up the most lovely country on the planet. What could go wrong.

[phyllo]

And this need have nothing to do with being better or hating anyone. BC could have very good reasons for seceding and having a smaller, step closer to more direct democracy, nation, without it entailing that it hates Albertians, who may also benefit from being a smaller in some ways similar nation.

This is so taboo in so many contexts that one is immediately considered hateful for even suggesting the idea. I don't share the OP's urge to hit some kind of ethnic levels. I think it is far better to just move forward from where you are. In the context of the thread, I am guessing that this will get the primary focus from the people on the left of center and even some on the right. To me this ends up baby and bathwater.

Race/ethnicity appears to be a major concern of the OP. One has to question where it goes and where it ends. It's best to get it out in the open now in order to avoid future surprises.

[Gloominary]

And this need have nothing to do with being better or hating anyone. BC could have very good reasons for seceding and having a smaller, step closer to more direct democracy, nation, without it entailing that it hates Albertians, who may also benefit from being a smaller in some ways similar nation.

This is so taboo in so many contexts that one is immediately considered hateful for even suggesting the idea. I don't share the OP's urge to hit some kind of ethnic levels. I think it is far better to just move forward from where you are. In the context of the thread, I am guessing that this will get the primary focus from the people on the left of center and even some on the right. To me this ends up baby and bathwater.

Race/ethnicity appears to be a major concern of the OP. One has to question where it goes and where it ends. It's best to get it out in the open now in order to avoid future surprises.

It begins and ends at a partial racial and religious separatism.
This has nothing to do with supremacism, or oppressing anyone.
Regarding race and religion, I only want us to make two policy changes.
The first would restrict immigration to non-Muslim Whites only until we approach the percentage we're looking for (75-80% white majority) before eliminating immigration altogether.
The second would deport long term unemployed Muslim and non-White immigrants back to their country of origin (not Muslims and non-Whites who were born here, they needn't fret).
I am an atheist, and I don't have a problem with non-Christians, only with Islam, because of its inherent political, ethnic and racial ambitions.

[phyllo]

It begins and ends at a partial racial and religious separatism.

What does "A partial racial and religious separatism" mean in practice?

This has nothing to do with supremacism, or oppressing anyone.

Non-whites would have fewer rights and protections. That has to be the case if you deport non-whites simply because they are non-white. Right?

The first would restrict immigration to non-Muslim Whites only until we approach the percentage we're looking for (75-80% white majority) before eliminating immigration altogether.

The BC deathrate is much greater than the birthrate. Without immigration, the population will shrink.

The second would deport long term unemployed Muslim and non-White immigrants back to their country of origin (not Muslims and non-Whites who were born here, they needn't fret).

That seems to include unemployed Muslim and non-white BC citizens. Are you specifically protecting citizens from deportation?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Race/ethnicity appears to be a major concern of the OP. One has to question where it goes and where it ends. It's best to get it out in the open now in order to avoid future surprises.

I suppose I am taking Gloominary as just one guy mulling, rather than the start of a new movement. Of course probing what he means in practice and seeing if there is more around the bend is a good idea. But I wanted to respond to what generally gets ignored in secession type movements.

[phyllo]

Yes. Those were valid points in general. But a lot of them don't apply in Canada because the provincial governments have a great deal of power over local affairs.

How Power is Divided

Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants broad powers to the federal government to legislate for "Peace, Order and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces." The Fathers of Confederation took as their guiding principle that jurisdiction over matters of national interest would be given to Parliament and those of particular provincial interest, to the provinces.

Because Québec was governed by a Civil Code, the provinces were granted jurisdiction over property and civil rights. Québec was excluded from section 94, which allowed for the possible standardization of private law for the rest of the provinces.

Parliament was also given greater residuary jurisdiction than the provincial legislatures — meaning that all powers (and new powers arising in the future) not specifically given to the provinces, would go to the federal government, as long as they were of a general, and not local, nature. Over time, the courts have interpreted federal residuary power to include the incorporation of businesses with federal objectives, as well as aeronautics, radio, television, nuclear energy, responsibility for the national capital, offshore mineral rights, official languages within the federal sphere, citizenship, foreign affairs and the control of drugs, and emergency powers in peace and war.

Federal Powers

Other areas of federal jurisdiction include trade and commerce, direct and indirect taxation, currency, the postal service, census taking and statistics, national defence, the federal civil service, navigation, fisheries, banking, copyright, Aboriginals and Indian reserves, naturalization, marriage and divorce, criminal law, penitentiaries and interprovincial works and undertakings.

Amending Powers

The division of powers can be changed. For example, by constitutional amendment Parliament gained exclusive jurisdiction over unemployment insurance in 1940.

In 1949, also by constitutional amendment (section 91.1 of the Constitution Act), Parliament was granted the power to amend the Constitution of Canada – except in matters affecting provincial jurisdictions and privileges. However, in a 1949 decision on the Senate, the Supreme Court of Canada restricted the interpretation of the expression "Constitution of Canada" by stating that this expression in section 91.1 referred to the internal federal Constitution and not to the Constitution of all Canada. For example, Parliament could not abolish the Senate, because it represents the provinces and is not exclusively a federal concern.

The Constitution Act, 1982 repealed section 91.1. As a result, section 44 of the 1982 Act states that, subject to provincial approval in certain cases, "Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons." In 2014 the Supreme Court clarified the issue by ruling that changes to the make-up of the Senate and the appointment of senators require the consent of the federal government as well as seven provinces with at least half of Canada's population, and that abolishing the Senate would require the consent of the federal government and all 10 provinces.

The provinces have had the right to amend their internal constitutions (except the office of the lieutenant-governor) since 1867.

Provincial Powers

Provincial legislatures have jurisdiction, among other things, over their internal constitutions, as well as direct taxation for provincial purposes, municipalities, school boards, hospitals, property and civil rights (their largest area of responsibility), administration of civil and criminal justice, penalties for infraction of provincial statutes, prisons, celebration of marriage, provincial civil service, local works and corporations with provincial objectives.

The courts have restrictively interpreted federal power over commerce and liberally interpreted provincial power over property and civil rights. There are four areas of power shared by the provinces and the federal government: agriculture, immigration, old-age pensions and supplementary benefits. In the case of dispute, federal legislation will prevail for areas under section 95 (agriculture and immigration) and provincial legislation will prevail for those under section 94A (old age pensions). Education is allocated to the provinces, but is subject to certain religious guarantees.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/ ... -of-powers

[Gloominary]

@Phyllo

What does "A partial racial and religious separatism" mean in practice?

Nothing more than what we've already discussed, just closing the borders to non-Whites and Muslims.

Non-whites would have fewer rights and protections. That has to be the case if you deport non-whites simply because they are non-white. Right?

Long term unemployed non-White and Muslim immigrants could be deported, other than that, non-White and Muslim immigrants should have as many rights and protections as Whites and non-Muslims.
This's just about restoring a white majority and protecting all of us from Islamic terror, which's what the founders of Canada and BC wanted, not about oppressing anyone.
I don't consider all racial and religious discrimination to be a form of oppression, it depends on the severity of the discrimination, and I don't consider asking someone to go back to their country of origin because they refuse to contribute, a form of oppression.

The BC deathrate is much greater than the birthrate. Without immigration, the population will shrink.

I don't see this as a problem, in fact it's a solution to overpopulation.
Birthrates vary throughout history, I don't foresee the current birthrate continuing into the distant future, and if it does, measures can be taken to correct it, but for now it doesn't need to be.
I want to preserve and protect BC's wildlife, and resources for a thousand generations to come, the current administration wants to ensure its wholesale exploitation and destruction by mega-corporations.

That seems to include unemployed Muslim and non-white BC citizens. Are you specifically protecting citizens from deportation?

Non-White and Muslims citizens born here would be protected from being deported, non-White and Muslim citizens not born here would not be protected from being deported.
Other than that, both non-White and Muslim citizens born here and not born here would have all the protections Whites and non-Muslims have.

[Gloominary]

For anyone interested in learning more about this subject, check out these links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/24/why-i-think-british-columbia-should-quit-canada-rafe-mair/

[phyllo]

Non-White and Muslims citizens born here would be protected from being deported, non-White and Muslim citizens not born here would not be protected from being deported.
Other than that, both non-White and Muslim citizens born here and not born here would have all the protections Whites and non-Muslims have.

That's the thing that bothers me ... that you're prepared to remove some rights from some citizens based on race and religion. It's extremely dangerous for everyone. It's the thin edge of the wedge and nothing good can come from it.