Historic census data

[Docere]

There were sizable numbers of Italian immigrants in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northeast Minnesota as well.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I wonder how many of these folks had relatives who also immigrated to the big cities.

Probably not many. The "big cities" weren't some sort of hugely prestigious thing in the early 20th century. Urban life wasn't nearly as desirable or as interesting to many people as rural and agricultural life. Canada attracted immigrants with images of farms, not cities. Even if you wanted to live in a big city, every town in the country west of Ontario was convinced that it would be a big city before long, and the emergence of many big cities from small towns in the previous decades made such claims seem perfectly plausible.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Docere

There were sizable numbers of Italian immigrants in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northeast Minnesota as well.

Yes it was all very similar, even with the Finns on the south shore of Superior in towns between Duluth and Marquette.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Probably not many. The "big cities" weren't some sort of hugely prestigious thing in the early 20th century. Urban life wasn't nearly as desirable or as interesting to many people as rural and agricultural life. Canada attracted immigrants with images of farms, not cities. Even if you wanted to live in a big city, every town in the country west of Ontario was convinced that it would be a big city before long, and the emergence of many big cities from small towns in the previous decades made such claims seem perfectly plausible.

It seems like in contrast to the US (where the big city life was appealing for immigrants already in the 19th century to turn of the 20th century), Canadian immigration disproportionately to the biggest cities was much more post-war. I'm guessing by the 40s or at least the 50s, that's when urban immigration started to dominate over small town immigration?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I don't think the US had any major counterpart of the small, relatively remote from a large city, mining town oriented Italian immigrants the way Northern Ontario did. I wonder how many of these folks had relatives who also immigrated to the big cities.

The Ward in Toronto was home to a lot of Italian sojourners - seasonal workers that lived in Toronto during the winter. In 1915, the Italian population was estimated at 12,000 - evenly split between sojourners and permanent residents.

By the 1930s however I suspect Toronto's Italian community was more "permanent."

Some figures on Toronto's early 20th century Italian population:

1901 1,156 0.6%
1911 4,873 1.3%
1915 12,000 (6000 permanent, 6000 sojourners)
1931 15,507 2.6%
1941 17,887 2.7%

https://books.google.ca/books?id=by0...Zucchi&f=false

[Docere]

When I was growing up, the local fruit market was owned by the son of an early 20th century Italian immigrant fruit dealer. Italian immigrants dominated fruit retailing in Toronto in the early 20th century.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

The Ward in Toronto was home to a lot of Italian sojourners - seasonal workers that lived in Toronto during the winter. In 1915, the Italian population was estimated at 12,000 - evenly split between sojourners and permanent residents.

"Sojourners" -- a bit of a poetic term you don't hear much these days for non-permanent residents.

Nowadays you'd hear terms like guest workers, temporary foreign workers, migrant workers, or expat (which has more high class connotations) etc.

[Docere]

Canada sort of stands "in between" the US and Australia in terms of the timing of mass immigration of European immigrants.

I'll bet Toronto had a much, much higher proportion of continental Europeans than did Melbourne (a city to which it is often compared) at the time.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Probably not many. The "big cities" weren't some sort of hugely prestigious thing in the early 20th century. Urban life wasn't nearly as desirable or as interesting to many people as rural and agricultural life. Canada attracted immigrants with images of farms, not cities. Even if you wanted to live in a big city, every town in the country west of Ontario was convinced that it would be a big city before long, and the emergence of many big cities from small towns in the previous decades made such claims seem perfectly plausible.

Many of the big immigrant early 20th century European immigrants went to the Prairies - German-Russians, Scandinavians, Ukrainians.

Winnipeg of course had a lot of working class Ukrainian immigrants. My feeling is the present-day Ukrainian Canadian population in other Prairie cities like Saskatoon and Edmonton however largely made their way there from the rural hinterlands, rather than direct immigration to those cities (which were pretty small pre-WWII).

[Docere]

Only a few early 20th century immigrant groups really concentrated in the big Eastern cities: Jews most notably (2/3 lived in Montreal and Toronto in 1931), Italians to a lesser extent (35% in Montreal/Toronto).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

The Ward in Toronto was home to a lot of Italian sojourners - seasonal workers that lived in Toronto during the winter. In 1915, the Italian population was estimated at 12,000 - evenly split between sojourners and permanent residents.

By the 1930s however I suspect Toronto's Italian community was more "permanent."

Some figures on Toronto's early 20th century Italian population:

1901 1,156 0.6%
1911 4,873 1.3%
1915 12,000 (6000 permanent, 6000 sojourners)
1931 15,507 2.6%
1941 17,887 2.7%

https://books.google.ca/books?id=by0...Zucchi&f=false

Does Canada have a long history of either counting or conceptually separating out "sojourners" and permanent immigrants?

I've noticed that too with the "non-permanent resident" vs. "immigrant" classification in the Census.

Even the old term for permanent resident, which was "landed immigrant", kind of reflects this division, with the term "landed" representing intent to settle long term.

By contrast, this is a difference that's elided in say the US or even other countries, when talking about "immigrants". There, the boundary between non-permanent residents and immigrants with intent to settle isn't as conceptual or clear -- they all get lumped together as foreign-born or "immigrant".

There's also the whole ongoing US Census controversy about counting citizens. I think Canada maybe makes it more clear whether a foreign-born person is currently waiting on a path to citizenship or is not. I can't imagine there really much being controversy like that in Canada on counting that.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Only a few early 20th century immigrant groups really concentrated in the big Eastern cities: Jews most notably (2/3 lived in Montreal and Toronto in 1931), Italians to a lesser extent (40% in Montreal/Toronto).

So, basically, Canada never had an Ellis Island-like scenario where the landing point of the masses of immigrants itself was the final destination (eg. NYC) or close to the final destination (eg. the northeast) of a large percentage of the immigrants in the early 20th century.

In an earlier thread I asked why Canada's "Ellis Island", Pier 21, is not as well known. In part that might be because there's less of a mythology of "when you've landed on these shores, this is your new home", as opposed to "when you first land in North America, get from point A to point B and then point C, where it'd be your new home". Thus, the initial landing point is not as mythologized, but just seen as one stop along the way?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So, basically, Canada never had an Ellis Island-like scenario where the landing point of the masses of immigrants itself was the final destination (eg. NYC) or close to the final destination (eg. the northeast) of a large percentage of the immigrants in the early 20th century.

In an earlier thread I asked why Canada's "Ellis Island", Pier 21, is not as well known. In part that might be because there's less of a mythology of "when you've landed on these shores, this is your new home", as opposed to "when you first land in North America, get from point A to point B and then point C, where it'd be your new home". Thus, the initial landing point is not as mythologized, but just seen as one stop along the way?

Immigrants didn't go to Halifax in large numbers, so Pier 21 just doesn't have the cultural significance that Ellis Island had.

It was more like the port of Charleston than Ellis Island.

[Docere]

Quebec City was also a major port of landing, and like Halifax it was a city bypassed by immigrants.

[CanadianCentaur]

Originally Posted by Docere

Immigrants didn't go to Halifax in large numbers, so Pier 21 just doesn't have the cultural significance that Ellis Island had.

It was more like the port of Charleston than Ellis Island.

I would tend to agree.

My parents first immigrated to Canada in 1968 by ship, and did so via Pier 21. And you're right it wasn't as well known as a landing point for transatlantic immigration into Canada. Didn't most go through Montreal or something? After all it was Canada's largest city until the mid-70s.

Also, although the jet age was well underway with jet planes like the Boeing 707 and the DC-8 able to fly transatlantic routes, air travel was still pretty expensive compared to by sea. It wasn't until the advent of widebodies, of which the 747 was the first, and later on deregulation/airline competition, did air travel begin to exceed that of by sea in numbers for immigrants. At least that's what I've been told.

[Capsicum]

What year(s) were likely the last when most immigrants came by ship, not air? Somewhere by the end of the 60s?

[Capsicum]

Was "fresh off the boat" to describe recent immigrants, ever an expression used at the time that most immigrants came by boat, not plane?

Most usages of "fresh off the boat" I've seen in popular culture make it seem like it's describing a generation of people too young to have been the ones who arrived by boat.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by CanadianCentaur

I would tend to agree.

My parents first immigrated to Canada in 1968 by ship, and did so via Pier 21. And you're right it wasn't as well known as a landing point for transatlantic immigration into Canada. Didn't most go through Montreal or something? After all it was Canada's largest city until the mid-70s.

Also, although the jet age was well underway with jet planes like the Boeing 707 and the DC-8 able to fly transatlantic routes, air travel was still pretty expensive compared to by sea. It wasn't until the advent of widebodies, of which the 747 was the first, and later on deregulation/airline competition, did air travel begin to exceed that of by sea in numbers for immigrants. At least that's what I've been told.

Immigrants by ship from the UK landed in Montreal (as well as Halifax). Not sure about immigrants arriving from other countries.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Was "fresh off the boat" to describe recent immigrants, ever an expression used at the time that most immigrants came by boat, not plane?

Most usages of "fresh off the boat" I've seen in popular culture make it seem like it's describing a generation of people too young to have been the ones who arrived by boat.

Holocaust survivors were often called "greenhorns" by Jews whose families came earlier.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Does Canada have a long history of either counting or conceptually separating out "sojourners" and permanent immigrants?

I've noticed that too with the "non-permanent resident" vs. "immigrant" classification in the Census.

No, this was a community estimate, not a Census figure. Distinguishing between immigrants and nonpermanent only really started in the past few decades.