Monday, 26 November 2007

Jamaica wants Canadian tax dollars to help "look after" its returned criminals

Jamaica wants Canada to help look after `cons' it sends back

Steady flow of criminals are proving a burden on meagre home resources
Nov 23, 2007 04:30 AM
Sandro Contenta
Feature Writer

KINGSTON, Jamaica–They arrive on flights dubbed "Con Air," a steady flow of Jamaicans thrown out of their adopted countries as convicted criminals.

More than 33,000 deportees have landed during the past 15 years, almost all removed from Canada, Britain and the United States. For a country of 2.7 million people struggling with poverty, limited police resources and rampant crime, the deportations are placing added strain on an already burdened society, Jamaican officials say.

After years of lobbying Canada and others to end the practice, Jamaica recently changed tactics. It's now pushing for funds to set up programs that help deportees re-integrate into a land some haven't seen since childhood.

The U.S. and Britain, which by far expel the most ex-offenders, recently made financial offers. But Canada has apparently remained silent.

Note - [Jamaica wanted Canada to keep the criminals its culture of crime produced? And now it wants the Canadian tax payer to subsidize the return of their criminals. That's rich. Looks like Jamaica used immigration as a means to export its criminals much in the same way Mexico uses immigration to export its poor. It just an avenue to make their problems someone else's. In economics its called the externalization of costs and that usually means society pays, the taxpayer, for corporate waste.

I speculate many countries are using immigration for nefarious or self serving purposes. China and India, I suspect, are using immigration as a form of reverse colonialism and we Canadians are playing right along. Immigration is not what it used to be.]

Last year, Jamaican officials counted 224 deportees from Canada. In 2005, the number was 217. They say the actual number is somewhat higher, noting they don't always become aware of Jamaicans who voluntarily leave Canada after being ordered deported.

About 122,000 Jamaican-born residents live in Canada, according to the 2001 census.

Note - [According to wiki there are 211,720 Jamaicans living in Chanda but I'm sure some of those include those who were born here but call themselves Jamaican nevertheless. Of course they won't live in Jamaica but they are proud to call themselves Jamaican. Go figure.]

A United Nations/World Bank report notes that Canada and the other countries have a legal right to deport criminals who are not citizens. But it suggests they have a moral responsibility for deportees, "especially those who were raised in the ghettos of three of the richest countries in the world."

The report also notes that 85 per cent of Jamaica's skilled labour emigrates, mostly to the U.S., Britain and Canada. These countries, Barnes says, benefit from Jamaica's best while deporting those who have gone wrong, saddling the island with a high concentration of the unskilled and less employable.

Note - [If that figure is correct then that is a lot. That is another reason why we need reform. Canada poaches the developing world of its much needed skilled labour. These people can help build stable societies. Funny, you will never hear anyone on the left condemn Canada for this behaviour even though the World Health Organization did condemn Canada, along with other countries, for poaching the developing world of its much needed health professionals. I think the reason for the lack of criticism on the left is that the left use immigration to attack traditional Canada.]

The most notorious deportee from Canada was O'Neil Grant, thrown out after being acquitted of killing "Vivi" Leimonis, shot during a botched robbery at a Just Desserts café on Davenport Rd. in 1994. Grant's case fuelled calls for changes to federal legislation to more easily deport non-Canadians.

Grant had prior convictions for drugs and assault with a weapon. After 20 years in Canada, he was ordered deported by an adjudicator who described him as a public danger.

Read the entire article at The Toronto Star.

I found the following at this site.

While black people are over-represented in violent crime statistics, those with white skins are under-represented. They account for almost 63% of the Toronto population, but just over 52% of the charges laid in violent crimes. Bundle all those numbers together and it turns out that slightly more than half the charges ill violent crime cases are laid against immigrants. Keep in mind that 43% of Toronto's population was born outside Canada, so the imbalance is not as large as it appears at first, However, there is one community of immigrants that does exhibit a huge imbalance.

People who were born in Jamaica are listed in 12,777 charges, or 9.5% of total cases of violent offences. Census data indicates Jamaican-born residents comprise only 2.4% of Toronto's population. Sociologists, criminologists, and others "ists" have long studied the problem, but there is no tidy, one-size-fits-all cause, although poverty is a major culprit.

Jamaican-Canadians are among the poorest immigrant groups in Toronto. That was the finding of a York University study released in May 2000. It also found that more than 13,000--or nearly 65%--of all Jamaican-Canadian children in Toronto were living in poverty. Nearly two-thirds had single-parent families, almost always with the father being absent. A lot of this dysfunction springs from Jamaican society, where there is a lot of poverty, drugs, gangs, and violence.

That's multiculturalism for you and it is saying what I have said before on this blog before. Jamaican society is not compatible with Canadian society. We, foolishly, have imported Jamaica's social and familial dysfunction to this country and now we are paying for it. There is nothing racist or wrong about restricting or preventing immigration from select countries. It's the smart thing to do.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Canadians are entirerly within their rights in disallowing immigration from Jamaica. We are better off without them, by far.