It wasn't too long ago that much of Canada's political class was united in their embrace of immigration to help grow the population and with it, the economy. Now, many of those same politicians are singing a different tune as it's regularly stated as fact that Canada's immigration consensus is broken. 

Today, part one of a two-part documentary on the political 180 on immigration, how it happened so quickly, and what it means for Canada as the country shrinks its population for the first time in history.

Welcome to r/CanadianbyDescent

To keep this community a high-quality space for discussion, we rely on a combination of community voting and strict enforcement of our core rules. Please read through these guidelines before posting or commenting.

The Power is in Your Hands: Upvote and Downvote

We want our community to actively shape the front page. Please use Reddit’s built-in moderation tools—upvote content that adds value, fosters great discussion, or brings high-quality insights, and downvote content that is off-topic, lazy, or low-effort. Your votes are the first line of defense.

Rule #1: No Personal Attacks/Insults

The Rule: Personal attacks, insults, and targeting an individual or a group that participates in this forum rather than the issues and arguments themselves are strictly prohibited.

What it Means & Examples

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or traits of the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself.

• The "You" Test: As a general rule of thumb, any comment that includes the word "you" combined with any kind of insult is highly likely to be an ad hominem attack because it shifts the focus onto the person. "You are (an idiot/unkind/self-centered/egocentric/whiner/etc.)."
• Group Insults: This rule also applies to insults directed at people holding a specific view (especially if that view has already been expressed or is common in this group), or insults directed at a demographic or group commonly found in this community.
• If in doubt, run your comment or post through an AI. AI is fairly good at identifying ad hominem attacks.

Why We Have This Rule

We enforce this for two major reasons:

1. It keeps discussions on the rails: Personal attacks are the number one reason internet conversations degenerate. Without this rule, threads rapidly devolve into screaming matches that inevitably end with Godwin's Law.
2. It prevents logical fallacies: Attacking a person does nothing to prove their argument wrong. Even if someone is an [whatever], they may still be right about this one thing.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #2: Do Not Respond to Personal Attacks/Insults

If you are the target of an insult or spot someone violating Rule #1, do not respond to the attack. Instead, take the following steps:

• Report It: Hit the report button immediately. It may take us a while, but the mods will handle it and clean it up. If you engage and fire back, it makes the clean-up process much harder for the mod team.
• Consider Blocking: If someone insults you, consider simply blocking them rather than responding at all. They will never see another post from you and you will never see another post from them. Your peace of mind is worth more than a flame war.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #3: No Argument from Authority

The Rule: Do not rely on your status, credentials, or personal identity to validate your argument.

What it Means

An argument from authority occurs when someone claims a statement must be true because it comes from an "expert" or a position of power, rather than proving it with evidence.

• Show, Don't Tell: If you possess genuine authority or expertise on a subject, you should demonstrate it through the depth, facts, and logic of your post—not by simply claiming the title.
• The Internet Reality: On the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone. Credentials cannot be easily verified in an anonymous forum, making them an unreliable basis for debate.
• The Rule #1 Trap: Arguments from authority actively invite violations of Rule #1. When a poster claims authority, responders are far more likely to attack the poster's claimed credentials or motives rather than focusing on the actual merits of the argument.

Enforcement & Mental Model

• Action: Violations of Rule #3 will not result in any moderator actions (no deletions or bans), unless it results in a response that violates Rule #1 (or appears very likely to do so). This is an intellectual guideline rather than a punishable offense.
• The "Santa" Mindset: We want everyone in this community to be fully aware of this rule and to use a specific mental model when reading posts: Whenever someone makes a claim of authority, simply imagine they are claiming to be Santa Claus with a Ph.D. in Giftology. Since you cannot verify their identity, treat the claim with the exact same level of skepticism and redirect your attention entirely to whether their actual argument holds water. We want the community to naturally identify this fallacy and counter it with pure logic.

We also enforce all Reddit Platform rules as required by Reddit.

Thank you for helping us keep this subreddit a place for sharp ideas and respectful debates!

Yes, I know that someone is going to claim that this is off-topic. Nevertheless, I believe that this is of interest to Canadians by Descent, and so I'm posting it.

Welcome to r/CanadianbyDescent

To keep this community a high-quality space for discussion, we rely on a combination of community voting and strict enforcement of our core rules. Please read through these guidelines before posting or commenting.

The Power is in Your Hands: Upvote and Downvote

We want our community to actively shape the front page. Please use Reddit’s built-in moderation tools—upvote content that adds value, fosters great discussion, or brings high-quality insights, and downvote content that is off-topic, lazy, or low-effort. Your votes are the first line of defense.

Rule #1: No Personal Attacks/Insults

The Rule: Personal attacks, insults, and targeting an individual or a group that participates in this forum rather than the issues and arguments themselves are strictly prohibited.

What it Means & Examples

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or traits of the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself.

• The "You" Test: As a general rule of thumb, any comment that includes the word "you" combined with any kind of insult is highly likely to be an ad hominem attack because it shifts the focus onto the person. "You are (an idiot/unkind/self-centered/egocentric/whiner/etc.)."
• Group Insults: This rule also applies to insults directed at people holding a specific view (especially if that view has already been expressed or is common in this group), or insults directed at a demographic or group commonly found in this community.
• If in doubt, run your comment or post through an AI. AI is fairly good at identifying ad hominem attacks.

Why We Have This Rule

We enforce this for two major reasons:

1. It keeps discussions on the rails: Personal attacks are the number one reason internet conversations degenerate. Without this rule, threads rapidly devolve into screaming matches that inevitably end with Godwin's Law.
2. It prevents logical fallacies: Attacking a person does nothing to prove their argument wrong. Even if someone is an [whatever], they may still be right about this one thing.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #2: Do Not Respond to Personal Attacks/Insults

If you are the target of an insult or spot someone violating Rule #1, do not respond to the attack. Instead, take the following steps:

• Report It: Hit the report button immediately. It may take us a while, but the mods will handle it and clean it up. If you engage and fire back, it makes the clean-up process much harder for the mod team.
• Consider Blocking: If someone insults you, consider simply blocking them rather than responding at all. They will never see another post from you and you will never see another post from them. Your peace of mind is worth more than a flame war.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #3: No Argument from Authority

The Rule: Do not rely on your status, credentials, or personal identity to validate your argument.

What it Means

An argument from authority occurs when someone claims a statement must be true because it comes from an "expert" or a position of power, rather than proving it with evidence.

• Show, Don't Tell: If you possess genuine authority or expertise on a subject, you should demonstrate it through the depth, facts, and logic of your post—not by simply claiming the title.
• The Internet Reality: On the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone. Credentials cannot be easily verified in an anonymous forum, making them an unreliable basis for debate.
• The Rule #1 Trap: Arguments from authority actively invite violations of Rule #1. When a poster claims authority, responders are far more likely to attack the poster's claimed credentials or motives rather than focusing on the actual merits of the argument.

Enforcement & Mental Model

• Action: Violations of Rule #3 will not result in any moderator actions (no deletions or bans), unless it results in a response that violates Rule #1 (or appears very likely to do so). This is an intellectual guideline rather than a punishable offense.
• The "Santa" Mindset: We want everyone in this community to be fully aware of this rule and to use a specific mental model when reading posts: Whenever someone makes a claim of authority, simply imagine they are claiming to be Santa Claus with a Ph.D. in Giftology. Since you cannot verify their identity, treat the claim with the exact same level of skepticism and redirect your attention entirely to whether their actual argument holds water. We want the community to naturally identify this fallacy and counter it with pure logic.

We also enforce all Reddit Platform rules as required by Reddit.

Thank you for helping us keep this subreddit a place for sharp ideas and respectful debates!

Marin Immigration Law submitted an ATIP request to IRCC for procedure related documents and got 157 pages of documents, some of which are internal training notes.

A fantastic series of articles about the Americans who have moved to Canada, including some as a result of Bill C-3 and the Bjorkquist decision.

Welcome to r/CanadianbyDescent

To keep this community a high-quality space for discussion, we rely on a combination of community voting and strict enforcement of our core rules. Please read through these guidelines before posting or commenting.

The Power is in Your Hands: Upvote and Downvote

We want our community to actively shape the front page. Please use Reddit’s built-in moderation tools—upvote content that adds value, fosters great discussion, or brings high-quality insights, and downvote content that is off-topic, lazy, or low-effort. Your votes are the first line of defense.

Rule #1: No Ad Hominem Attacks

The Rule: Personal attacks, insults, and targeting an individual or a group that participates in this forum rather than the issues and arguments themselves are strictly prohibited.

What it Means & Examples

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or traits of the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself.

• The "You" Test: As a general rule of thumb, any comment that includes the word "you" combined with any kind of insult is highly likely to be an ad hominem attack because it shifts the focus onto the person. "You are (an idiot/unkind/self-centered/egocentric/whiner/etc.)."
• Group Insults: This rule also applies to insults directed at people holding a specific view (especially if that view has already been expressed or is common in this group), or insults directed at a demographic or group commonly found in this community.
• If in doubt, run your comment or post through an AI. AI is fairly good at identifying ad hominem attacks.

Why We Have This Rule

We enforce this for two major reasons:

1. It keeps discussions on the rails: Personal attacks are the number one reason internet conversations degenerate. Without this rule, threads rapidly devolve into screaming matches that inevitably end with Godwin's Law.
2. It prevents logical fallacies: Attacking a person does nothing to prove their argument wrong. Even if someone is an [whatever], they may still be right about this one thing.

What to Do If You Encounter an Attack

If you are the target of an insult or spot someone violating this rule, do not respond to the attack. Instead, take the following steps:

• Report It: Hit the report button immediately. It may take us a while, but the mods will handle it and clean it up. If you engage and fire back, it makes the clean-up process much harder for the mod team.
• Consider Blocking: If someone insults you, consider simply blocking them rather than responding at all. They will never see another post from you and you will never see another post from them. Your peace of mind is worth more than a flame war.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #2: No Argument from Authority

The Rule: Do not rely on your status, credentials, or personal identity to validate your argument.

What it Means & Why it's a Fallacy

An argument from authority occurs when someone claims a statement must be true because it comes from an "expert" or a position of power, rather than proving it with evidence.

• Show, Don't Tell: If you possess genuine authority or expertise on a subject, you should demonstrate it through the depth, facts, and logic of your post—not by simply claiming the title.
• The Internet Reality: On the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone. Credentials cannot be easily verified in an anonymous forum, making them an unreliable basis for debate.
• The Rule #1 Trap: Arguments from authority actively invite violations of Rule #1. When a poster claims authority, responders are far more likely to attack the poster's claimed credentials or motives rather than focusing on the actual merits of the argument.

Enforcement & Mental Model

• Action: Violations of Rule #2 will not result in any moderator actions (no deletions or bans), unless it results in a response that violates Rule #1 (or appears very likely to do so). This is an intellectual guideline rather than a punishable offense.
• The "Santa" Mindset: We want everyone in this community to be fully aware of this rule and to use a specific mental model when reading posts: Whenever someone makes a claim of authority, simply imagine they are claiming to be Santa Claus with a Ph.D. in Giftology. Since you cannot verify their identity, treat the claim with the exact same level of skepticism and redirect your attention entirely to whether their actual argument holds water. We want the community to naturally identify this fallacy and counter it with pure logic.

We also enforce all Reddit Platform rules as required by Reddit.

Thank you for helping us keep this subreddit a place for sharp ideas and respectful debates!

Welcome to r/CanadianbyDescent

To keep this community a high-quality space for discussion, we rely on a combination of community voting and strict enforcement of our core rules. Please read through these guidelines before posting or commenting.

The Power is in Your Hands: Upvote and Downvote

We want our community to actively shape the front page. Please use Reddit’s built-in moderation tools—upvote content that adds value, fosters great discussion, or brings high-quality insights, and downvote content that is off-topic, lazy, or low-effort. Your votes are the first line of defense.

Rule #1: No Ad Hominem Attacks

The Rule: Personal attacks, insults, and targeting an individual or a group that participates in this forum rather than the issues and arguments themselves are strictly prohibited.

What it Means & Examples

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or traits of the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself.

• The "You" Test: As a general rule of thumb, any comment that includes the word "you" combined with any kind of insult is highly likely to be an ad hominem attack because it shifts the focus onto the person. "You are (an idiot/unkind/self-centered/egocentric/whiner/etc.)."
• Group Insults: This rule also applies to insults directed at people holding a specific view (especially if that view has already been expressed or is common in this group), or insults directed at a demographic or group commonly found in this community.
• If in doubt, run your comment or post through an AI. AI is fairly good at identifying ad hominem attacks.

Why We Have This Rule

We enforce this for two major reasons:

1. It keeps discussions on the rails: Personal attacks are the number one reason internet conversations degenerate. Without this rule, threads rapidly devolve into screaming matches that inevitably end with Godwin's Law.
2. It prevents logical fallacies: Attacking a person does nothing to prove their argument wrong. Even if someone is an [whatever], they may still be right about this one thing.

What to Do If You Encounter an Attack

If you are the target of an insult or spot someone violating this rule, do not respond to the attack. Instead, take the following steps:

• Report It: Hit the report button immediately. It may take us a while, but the mods will handle it and clean it up. If you engage and fire back, it makes the clean-up process much harder for the mod team.
• Consider Blocking: If someone insults you, consider simply blocking them rather than responding at all. They will never see another post from you and you will never see another post from them. Your peace of mind is worth more than a flame war.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #2: No Argument from Authority

The Rule: Do not rely on your status, credentials, or personal identity to validate your argument.

What it Means & Why it's a Fallacy

An argument from authority occurs when someone claims a statement must be true because it comes from an "expert" or a position of power, rather than proving it with evidence.

• Show, Don't Tell: If you possess genuine authority or expertise on a subject, you should demonstrate it through the depth, facts, and logic of your post—not by simply claiming the title.
• The Internet Reality: On the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone. Credentials cannot be easily verified in an anonymous forum, making them an unreliable basis for debate.
• The Rule #1 Trap: Arguments from authority actively invite violations of Rule #1. When a poster claims authority, responders are far more likely to attack the poster's claimed credentials or motives rather than focusing on the actual merits of the argument.

Enforcement & Mental Model

• Action: Violations of Rule #2 will not result in any moderator actions (no deletions or bans), unless it results in a response that violates Rule #1 (or appears very likely to do so). This is an intellectual guideline rather than a punishable offense.
• The "Santa" Mindset: We want everyone in this community to be fully aware of this rule and to use a specific mental model when reading posts: Whenever someone makes a claim of authority, simply imagine they are claiming to be Santa Claus with a Ph.D. in Giftology. Since you cannot verify their identity, treat the claim with the exact same level of skepticism and redirect your attention entirely to whether their actual argument holds water. We want the community to naturally identify this fallacy and counter it with pure logic.

We also enforce all Reddit Platform rules as required by Reddit.

Thank you for helping us keep this subreddit a place for sharp ideas and respectful debates!

We're growing! (And we need a few more refs)

Huge thanks to all 2,000+ of you for making this community vibrant, active, and overwhelmingly respectful.

With that growth comes a bit more noise, and we want to ensure personal attacks and insults don't derail good conversations. We’re looking for a couple of cool, objective folks to join the mod team and help keep the peace.

Full disclosure: It’s unpaid work, the event never ends, and you rarely get applauded. But if you love this group and want to lend a hand keeping it a great place to hang out, please send me a DM!

Dozens of Acadians living in the United States are among those hoping to become Canadian citizens under the country's new citizenship by descent law — but one expert says the Immigration Department's narrow interpretation of the rules appears to disregard the history of this particular group.

Nadine Morin, a documentation specialist at the Anselme-Chiasson Centre for Acadian Studies at the Université de Moncton, said she's received genealogy requests from at least 30 people since January.

At first, she said, she thought it might be a stretch to trace the Canadian connection back to the 1700s. "It wasn't even Canada yet," she said in an interview.

But then she had second thoughts.

"To me, it's valid. They were in Acadia at the time and they had their feet on the ground here and we are Canada now," Morin said.

The centre's trove of records, which were collected, transcribed, authenticated and meticulously catalogued, have helped many Acadians from around the world trace their lineage back to the region.

Long waitlist

It's not always an easy task. British forces burned houses and churches after deporting some 10,000 Acadians between 1755 and 1763. Documents like baptismal and marriage records were sometimes smuggled out and the originals are now held in France and the U.S.

Morin said she hasn't heard yet whether any of the applicants she's helped have been approved to become Canadian citizens.

The waitlist is already long.

One Louisiana woman with Acadian heritage did get approved — only to be told later that her documents aren't acceptable.

The woman, whom The Canadian Press has agreed not to name, said she submitted her records after months of research. She said she was approved in February and received a citizenship certificate, along with a social insurance number and passport.

Then in June, she was among the 100 people who received letters from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) asking them to surrender their citizenship certificates.

• First Person

Her submission included a copy of her ancestor's 1730 baptismal record from St. Charles-aux-Mines Catholic Church — located in what is now Grand Pré, N.S., where a memorial church now stands as part of a national historic site.

The record was sourced from the Diocese of Baton Rouge, which holds the original documents.

According to a July letter from the Immigration Department, the woman's application was approved "due to an administrative error." The letter flagged that 1730 submission and said U.S. documents cannot confirm Canadian citizenship.

The woman said she didn't explain why the documents were from an American source in her initial application. She said she hopes she can submit another copy from a Canadian transcription in its place.

"I didn't even think of explaining that in my application because I just assumed they would know," she said.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Immigration Department said documents issued outside Canada can be taken into consideration in an application.

Proud of Acadian roots

"We are not in a position to confirm whether a particular document would be accepted or relied upon, as each proof of citizenship application is assessed on its own merits," Briannah Dale said in an email.

The department also said it's still reviewing 21 of the 100 cases it flagged in June.

Morin said she doesn't understand why the document wasn't accepted, given the historical context.

She said it would be "absolutely fantastic" if Acadians were able to become Canadians under the new law.

"I've met people from Louisiana and they are very, very proud of their Acadian history," she said.

Nova Scotia Sen. Allister Surette, who was president of the Université Sainte-Anne and chaired the 2004 World Acadian Congress, said he didn't know that the law, known as Bill C-3, could cover the descendants of Acadians when it came before the Senate.

Return for family

"I don't know the details of what IRCC will accept," he said.

He added that in this case, "I would hope that they would have a look at this very carefully."

Surette said Acadian communities like his own would be very interested in the idea of Acadian immigration to the region.

"This link here opens up an interesting door, where there's a cultural, social, emotional link to these areas," he said.

The applicant from Louisiana said she's hoping to move to Canada and had started looking for work before the June letter put a halt to her plans.

She sees it as a "return" for her family.

"If our ancestors had never been affected by the expulsion, we might have ended up born in Canada," she said.

The federal immigration department is being criticized by Acadian history specialists for unfair treatment of members of the French-speaking diaspora community, after it said they may not be entitled to Canadian citizenship because the sources of their family records are not acceptable.

Acadians living outside Canada who obtained citizenship after the November passing of a new law extending citizenship by descent are among those whom the department recently informed may have been granted the right to a Canadian passport in error.

Peggy Sun, the registrar of Canadian Citizenship, wrote in June to about 100 “Lost Canadians” saying she had reasonable grounds to believe that their citizenship status is not valid and informing them it is now under review.

Most of those sent such letters have now had their citizenship certificates and passports restored. But others have been told, in a subsequent letter, that they may have been granted a citizenship certificate in error.

In the case of Acadians, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has taken issue with some baptismal records, birth records and other documents sourced from France and the U.S.

Immigration department suddenly suspends citizenship of scores of ‘Lost Canadians’

Acadians, emigrants from France, established distinct communities in what is now Atlantic Canada in the 17th century. But sovereignty over much of their land passed to Britain after the signing of the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht when much French territory in North America was ceded to Britain.

British colonial authorities suspected Acadians were helping the French, including by trading with their forces. And they found that some fought alongside the French against them. The British forcibly expelled about 11,500 of the 14,000 Acadians between 1755 and 1764 from their territory in the Maritimes.

Some were deported to England, where they were imprisoned and later released. Some hid and others fled to regions under French control including in what is now Quebec and Prince Edward Island, or across the border into what is now the United States. Others were displaced to France, with many eventually finding refuge in Louisiana in what was then a Spanish colony.

Academics specializing in Acadian history say it is unjust for IRCC to penalize Acadians whose forebears were forced out by the British in the 18th century. Many records, including those held by churches and individual families were destroyed in the upheaval.

One register of Acadian historical records is in Baton Rouge, La., while others are in France.

Immigration department pauses applications to sponsor parents, grandparents to settle in Canada

Clint Bruce, professor of Acadian studies at L’Université Sainte-Anne in Nova Scotia, said not accepting documents sourced from archives held outside Canada was unjust.

“It’s deeply unfair because the difficulty of providing these required documents stems from the injustices that were inflicted on the Acadians at the time,” he said. “The exiles, they literally carried them probably in blankets or in a trunk as best they could, those registers, and brought them to the lower Mississippi Valley where they were housed in the church.”

Official records from Grand-Pré, N.S., a key Acadian settlement in the late 1600s, were taken to Louisiana.

“They were housed in the church there for over a century before they were transferred to an archival centre in Baton Rouge.”

One of those whose citizenship certificate was suspended in June is an Acadian whose family settled in Louisiana, and has lived their since.

She received citizenship this year after the passing of the new federal law.

Ottawa blames ‘unclear’ docs after people were ordered to surrender their citizenship certificates

But IRCC determined she may not be entitled to Canadian citizenship after all because she included in her application family records held in France and the U.S.

She had traced an ancestor born in 1730 in Acadia, sending IRCC their baptism certificate from Baton Rouge’s Archives and Records Center in Louisiana, which was an extract from the record of St. Charles Aux Mines Catholic Church in Acadia. She also sent a baptismal record of an ancestor held in the archives at Grand Châtelleraut, France.

In a letter from IRCC, a redacted version of which has been seen by The Globe and Mail, IRCC said having reviewed all the documents submitted, their Canadian citizenship certificate application “was approved in error” as documents submitted “were not from acceptable source authorities. It said documents from France and the U.S. ”cannot confirm Canadian citizenship."

Maurice Basque, a historian at the Centre of Acadian studies at l’Université de Moncton, said, despite being located in France and Louisiana, the documents were original Acadian records.

He said IRCC civil servants were showing “very poor judgment of what happened to the documents” after the expulsion of Acadians by the British.

When the British started burning churches, priests or Acadian elders rescued many official records, he said.

As a result, the original Grand-Pré register is in Baton Rouge, and original Acadian records from Beaubassin, a 17th-century Acadian village and trading centre in what is now Nova Scotia, are in La Rochelle in France, he said.

“They’re not French or American documents. They’re Acadian documents that are in France and Louisiana. That is a major difference,” Mr. Basque said.

Jeffrey MacDonald, an IRCC spokesperson, said “we are not in a position to confirm whether a particular document would be accepted or relied upon, as each proof of citizenship application is assessed on its own merits.”

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said it was deeply concerning that Acadians were “being denied recognition of legitimate historical records from France and the United States, even though these jurisdictions hold many of the primary archival documents.”

Welcome to r/CanadianbyDescent

To keep this community a high-quality space for discussion, we rely on a combination of community voting and strict enforcement of our core rules. Please read through these guidelines before posting or commenting.

The Power is in Your Hands: Upvote and Downvote

We want our community to actively shape the front page. Please use Reddit’s built-in moderation tools—upvote content that adds value, fosters great discussion, or brings high-quality insights, and downvote content that is off-topic, lazy, or low-effort. Your votes are the first line of defense.

Rule #1: No Ad Hominem Attacks

The Rule: Personal attacks, insults, and targeting an individual or a group that participates in this forum rather than the issues and arguments themselves are strictly prohibited.

What it Means & Examples

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or traits of the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself.

• The "You" Test: As a general rule of thumb, any comment that includes the word "you" combined with any kind of insult is highly likely to be an ad hominem attack because it shifts the focus onto the person. "You are (an idiot/unkind/self-centered/egocentric/whiner/etc.)."
• Group Insults: This rule also applies to insults directed at people holding a specific view (especially if that view has already been expressed or is common in this group), or insults directed at a demographic or group commonly found in this community.
• If in doubt, run your comment or post through an AI. AI is fairly good at identifying ad hominem attacks.

Why We Have This Rule

We enforce this for two major reasons:

1. It keeps discussions on the rails: Personal attacks are the number one reason internet conversations degenerate. Without this rule, threads rapidly devolve into screaming matches that inevitably end with Godwin's Law.
2. It prevents logical fallacies: Attacking a person does nothing to prove their argument wrong. Even if someone is an [whatever], they may still be right about this one thing.

What to Do If You Encounter an Attack

If you are the target of an insult or spot someone violating this rule, do not respond to the attack. Instead, take the following steps:

• Report It: Hit the report button immediately. It may take us a while, but the mods will handle it and clean it up. If you engage and fire back, it makes the clean-up process much harder for the mod team.
• Consider Blocking: If someone insults you, consider simply blocking them rather than responding at all. They will never see another post from you and you will never see another post from them. Your peace of mind is worth more than a flame war.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #2: No Argument from Authority

The Rule: Do not rely on your status, credentials, or personal identity to validate your argument.

What it Means & Why it's a Fallacy

An argument from authority occurs when someone claims a statement must be true because it comes from an "expert" or a position of power, rather than proving it with evidence.

• Show, Don't Tell: If you possess genuine authority or expertise on a subject, you should demonstrate it through the depth, facts, and logic of your post—not by simply claiming the title.
• The Internet Reality: On the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone. Credentials cannot be easily verified in an anonymous forum, making them an unreliable basis for debate.
• The Rule #1 Trap: Arguments from authority actively invite violations of Rule #1. When a poster claims authority, responders are far more likely to attack the poster's claimed credentials or motives rather than focusing on the actual merits of the argument.

Enforcement & Mental Model

• Action: Violations of Rule #2 will not result in any moderator actions (no deletions or bans), unless it results in a response that violates Rule #1 (or appears very likely to do so). This is an intellectual guideline rather than a punishable offense.
• The "Santa" Mindset: We want everyone in this community to be fully aware of this rule and to use a specific mental model when reading posts: Whenever someone makes a claim of authority, simply imagine they are claiming to be Santa Claus with a Ph.D. in Giftology. Since you cannot verify their identity, treat the claim with the exact same level of skepticism and redirect your attention entirely to whether their actual argument holds water. We want the community to naturally identify this fallacy and counter it with pure logic.

We also enforce all Reddit Platform rules as required by Reddit.

Thank you for helping us keep this subreddit a place for sharp ideas and respectful debates!

Welcome to r/CanadianbyDescent

To keep this community a high-quality space for discussion, we rely on a combination of community voting and strict enforcement of our core rules. Please read through these guidelines before posting or commenting.

The Power is in Your Hands: Upvote and Downvote

We want our community to actively shape the front page. Please use Reddit’s built-in moderation tools—upvote content that adds value, fosters great discussion, or brings high-quality insights, and downvote content that is off-topic, lazy, or low-effort. Your votes are the first line of defense.

Rule #1: No Ad Hominem Attacks

The Rule: Personal attacks, insults, and targeting an individual or a group that participates in this forum rather than the issues and arguments themselves are strictly prohibited.

What it Means & Examples

An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where someone attacks the character, motive, or traits of the person making an argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself.

• The "You" Test: As a general rule of thumb, any comment that includes the word "you" combined with any kind of insult is highly likely to be an ad hominem attack because it shifts the focus onto the person. "You are (an idiot/unkind/self-centered/egocentric/whiner/etc.)."
• Group Insults: This rule also applies to insults directed at people holding a specific view (especially if that view has already been expressed or is common in this group), or insults directed at a demographic or group commonly found in this community.
• If in doubt, run your comment or post through an AI. AI is fairly good at identifying ad hominem attacks.

Why We Have This Rule

We enforce this for two major reasons:

1. It keeps discussions on the rails: Personal attacks are the number one reason internet conversations degenerate. Without this rule, threads rapidly devolve into screaming matches that inevitably end with Godwin's Law.
2. It prevents logical fallacies: Attacking a person does nothing to prove their argument wrong. Even if someone is an [whatever], they may still be right about this one thing.

What to Do If You Encounter an Attack

If you are the target of an insult or spot someone violating this rule, do not respond to the attack. Instead, take the following steps:

• Report It: Hit the report button immediately. It may take us a while, but the mods will handle it and clean it up. If you engage and fire back, it makes the clean-up process much harder for the mod team.
• Consider Blocking: If someone insults you, consider simply blocking them rather than responding at all. They will never see another post from you and you will never see another post from them. Your peace of mind is worth more than a flame war.

Enforcement

• Serious/Intentional Violations: Will result in an immediate ban and deletion of the post at the moderators' discretion.
• Less Serious Violations: Will result in the deletion of the post or comment.

Rule #2: No Argument from Authority

The Rule: Do not rely on your status, credentials, or personal identity to validate your argument.

What it Means & Why it's a Fallacy

An argument from authority occurs when someone claims a statement must be true because it comes from an "expert" or a position of power, rather than proving it with evidence.

• Show, Don't Tell: If you possess genuine authority or expertise on a subject, you should demonstrate it through the depth, facts, and logic of your post—not by simply claiming the title.
• The Internet Reality: On the internet, anyone can claim to be anyone. Credentials cannot be easily verified in an anonymous forum, making them an unreliable basis for debate.
• The Rule #1 Trap: Arguments from authority actively invite violations of Rule #1. When a poster claims authority, responders are far more likely to attack the poster's claimed credentials or motives rather than focusing on the actual merits of the argument.

Enforcement & Mental Model

• Action: Violations of Rule #2 will not result in any moderator actions (no deletions or bans), unless it results in a response that violates Rule #1 (or appears very likely to do so). This is an intellectual guideline rather than a punishable offense.
• The "Santa" Mindset: We want everyone in this community to be fully aware of this rule and to use a specific mental model when reading posts: Whenever someone makes a claim of authority, simply imagine they are claiming to be Santa Claus with a Ph.D. in Giftology. Since you cannot verify their identity, treat the claim with the exact same level of skepticism and redirect your attention entirely to whether their actual argument holds water. We want the community to naturally identify this fallacy and counter it with pure logic.

We also enforce all Reddit Platform rules as required by Reddit.

Thank you for helping us keep this subreddit a place for sharp ideas and respectful debates!

If you are a descendant of an Acadian and you got a procedural fairness letter, please DM me. I would like to connect you with a reporter who is considering a story about IRCC's actions.

If you are a descendant of an Acadian and you got a procedural fairness letter, please DM me. I would like to connect you with a reporter who is considering a story about IRCC's actions.