Sunday, 27 July 2008

Using the refugee system for immigration: Foreigners in South Africa seek resettlement in Canada, Australia to escape anti-immigrant violence.

Got this thanks to a heads up from Refugee Resettlement Watch.

SOUTH AFRICA: Police storm refugee camp
17 Jul 2008 16:38:46 GMT
Source: IRIN


JOHANNESBURG , 17 July 2008 (IRIN) - Police stormed a refugee camp today in southern Johannesburg to release four security guards held hostage by foreign nationals displaced by the recent xenophobic violence in South Africa.

For more on the anti-immigrant violence that has gripped South Africa in the last few months read here. But basically the lack of jobs, decent housing, and escalating crime has frustrated many South Africans and they blame immigrants to the country from other regions of the African continent for it.

The tented "safety camp" in Johannesburg's Glenanda suburb houses about 2,000 people from 16 African countries and was established in the wake of widespread xenophobic attacks that killed more than 60 people, injured hundreds more and displaced tens of thousands in May this year.

The residents have voluntarily divided the camp into sections according to nationality; people from the Democratic Republic of Congo, numbering about 700 people, are the dominant group.

So far it's another banal story about ethnic violence in some far away place but it is the following that warrants our attention.

Richard Assante, who arrived illegally in South Africa from Ghana in 2006, said he had received a special identity document but was afraid to return to the camp as "people want to kill me because I got a card [identity document]."

He said most people in the camp were hoping to be resettled in either Canada or Australia, so they were rejecting both reintegration in South Africa and repatriation to their country of origin.

Got that? They are rejecting both repatriation and reintegration into South African society, two viable options. So it seems they are intentionally creating a situation that will lead to resettlement in some other country, preferable one with a high standard of living like Canada's.

The shelters established for victims of xenophobia have a two-month timeframe, and if foreign nationals refuse either reintegration into South African society or repatriation to their home countries, "we could have a dilemma" Masebe said. "We cannot force people to go back to their home countries and we cannot establish permanent shelters for foreign nationals."

Masebe said resettlement of the foreign nationals in the camps to a third country was not within the South African government's ambit.

Resettlement to a third country is, of course, a possible option as well but why Canada or Australia and not a country closer to home and culturally similar? We all know the answer to that question.

What is also curious is how Canada and Australia were singled out. Why not the United States? Why not the United Kingdom? What about France, Denmark, or Switzerland? Is it because of Canada's reputation for tolerance and accommodation or is it because we have the weakest immigration laws in the world coupled with a very generous welfare state which includes subsidized health care? I think we know the answer to that question as well, illustrating how wide spread throughout the third world is Canada's real reputation as the easiest industrialized country to get into with a generous welfare state.

It is apparent that these people are intentionally creating a problem, are intentionally rejecting any solution to the problem save immigration to Canada or Australia. They desire to use the refugee system for immigration purposes. Should we allow this? This answer is no even though we have been allowing this abuse of this humanitarian program for decades. It has to stop because if we don't put an end to it then Canada will continue to be seen as the choice destination for bogus refugees and with them the attendant social and economic problems that tend to follow them. Recall that these people do have options before them. They can either be repatriated or peruse integration into South Africa but they are purposely rejecting both.

It is because they have options that we should reject them. Unfortunately our refugee laws are in their favour and all they have to do is to make it to Canada and file a refugee claim. As a refugee they have all the rights of Canadian citizenship except the right to vote, all thanks to the Singh Decision of 1985. Also, they have at their disposal a seemingly endless appeal process to delay their removal if ordered deported. While they are here, they can abuse our citizenship laws and produce "anchor babies", children given automatic Canadian citizenship by virtue of being born on Canadian soil, to help them get back into the country if they are forced to leave. Also, they can sponsor a numerous amount of relatives if granted status as a refugee and landed immigrant. This is why Canada was singled out. If you say it is because Canada has a world wide reputation as a tolerant and accommodating society then you are either a politician, or selling newspapers, or gaming the immigration system, or live in Toronto, the city were everyone lives inside their heads.

Immigrants removed $1.5 to $2 billion dollars from the Canadian economy annually for the past four years.

Read it here at the Toronto Star.

Four in 10 immigrants send money home to kin

Jul 24, 2008 04:30 AM
Nicholas Keung
IMMIGRATION/DIVERSITY REPORTER


Despite their own financial woes, four in 10 immigrants in Canada sent money home to support families and friends abroad, says a new Statistics Canada report released yesterday.

The first national study of immigrants' remittances found those who came under the economic class as skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs topped the list by sending an average $3,000 abroad, compared with $2,700 for family-class immigrants and $1,900 for refugees.

Remittances accounted for 7.5 per cent of the remitter's annual personal income and 3.4 per cent of family income during a newcomer's first two years in the country. Canadians annually remitted anywhere between $1.5 billion and $2 billion in each of the last four years.

[...]

Data for the study, titled Remittances by Recent Immigrants, came from the statistics agency's longitudinal survey that followed a group of 12,000 newcomers who arrived here between 2000 and 2001, over a four-year period.

I don't blame them for sending money home to relatives. I'd do the same. But speaking in economic terms these remittances have to be counted as a cost or a loss to the country against any alleged economic benefits immigrants contribute to Canada. Also, these remittances are to be added to the pile of money Canadian tax payers already spend to service a bloated and chaotic immigration system.

When immigrants send money home they are removing capital from the Canadian economy that could be spent on goods and services here in the country, keeping businesses afloat and Canadians employed. The removal of $1.5 to $2 billion a year is not something that should be ignored and cause us to question if Canada's current immigration system is of any economic benefit to the country.

In light of this information coupled with the amount of tax dollars spent on immigration and refugee resettlement, with the attendant tax payer funded social services these "new Canadians" will undoubtedly use, Canada's immigration policy may be a losing investment and of little to no economic benefit to Canadians whatsoever.

Friday, 18 July 2008

Putting the health of Canadians at risk: rise in HIV cases in Canada due largely to immigration.

What gets me about the following story is that it doesn't seem to get into the heads of these people to bar anyone with an incurable infectious illness like HIV from entering Canada. They are more concerned with informing HIV positive immigrants about their status and to pursue proper "counselling, prevention and treatment", in other words where to get their "free" health care, than they are with the risk to the general public they posses. What the hell is wrong with these people? You can read it and weep here at the Toronto Star.

HIV-positive immigrants fall through cracks: Study

Calls on Ottawa to make cases of the virus a `reportable' disease
Jul 18, 2008 04:30 AM
Terri Theodore
THE CANADIAN PRESS


VANCOUVER–Immigrants with HIV account for a large portion of new infections of the disease in Canada and they're slipping between the health-care cracks, a report warns.

Although Citizenship and Immigration Canada is considering making HIV a reportable disease, currently it is not, meaning it is not considered a public health risk and it is not mandatory to report infections to public health officials.

The recent report by the B.C. Centre for Disease Control found about 16 per cent of all new infections in Canada are linked to people from countries where HIV is prevalent, yet they make up only 1.5 per cent of the Canadian population. The 2005 figure means the infection rate was almost 13 times greater for immigrants, or those connected to them, from HIV-endemic countries than for Canadians.

Tuberculosis and syphilis are considered reportable diseases by the federal immigration department, but HIV has only been designated a "notifiable" disease. There are no mandatory conditions for follow-up for immigrants who test positive for HIV. However, every province and territory lists HIV as a reportable disease.

"Targeted testing of immigrants, therefore, will increase the opportunity to ensure that HIV-positive immigrants are made aware of their status and support expedient counselling, prevention and treatment," said the report.

Notice how no mention of barring them entry due to public health concerns is made. It seems the report is more concerned with the health and welfare of immigrants, who are non-Canadian citizens who haven't paid a dime into the public health care system, than it is of Canadians.

But critics say making HIV a reportable disease is an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

What!? An unnecessary intrusion? Who are these people? So it's a human right now for an individual to keep secret his or her HIV positive status while infecting other people in society. Is it just me or does Canada seem to be getting more messed up each and every day?

Between 2002 and 2006 there were 2,567 immigration applicants who tested positive for HIV during their medical exams among the 1.2 million immigrants to Canada accepted during the same period.

Of those HIV-positive applicants, 89 per cent were determined to be medically admissible to Canada.

The question is why? What about the long term health risks these people posses? What about the strain these people may place on an already over stressed health care system? Why are we importing these medical problems into this country when there are waiting lists for MRI scans? Is Canada becoming the world's hospital care of the Canadian tax payer? I hope not because we simply cannot afford to take care of the world. But if it is your goal to bust Canada's public health care system then mass immigration will help you get that job done.

In related news Refugee Resettlement Watch brought this to my attention.

Duty to disclose

Man didn't tell partners of HIV
By DEAN PRITCHARD, SUN MEDIA


A Winnipeg man who hid the fact he was HIV-positive from his young sex partners has been convicted of six counts of aggravated sexual assault.

Justice Joan McKelvey convicted Clato Mabior, 31, yesterday of two additional counts of sexual touching and sexual interference. McKelvey acquitted Mabior of three additional counts of aggravated sexual assault involving three different victims.

At trial, the victims -- one as young as 12 years of age -- testified Mabior plied them with booze and drugs and engaged in repeated acts of unprotected sex without ever disclosing he was HIV-positive.

[...]

No date for sentencing has been set. The Crown is expected to seek a lengthy penitentiary sentence. Mabior, a Sudanese refugee, is likely to face certain deportation upon completing his sentence.

An "unnecessary intrusion of privacy" indeed! Morons.

Thursday, 17 July 2008

Deport Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad Now!!!

Meet Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, the "poster boy" for the appeals process. He is a convicted criminal and erstwhile terrorist who has successfully eluded a deportation order for 20 years thanks to an all too generous and very abusable appeal system that seems to exist solely to give immigration lawyers work. Try not to get too worked up after this care of the Toronto Star. I wonder which lawyer or lawyers built their careers around this guy.

Ordered deported in '88, terrorist still in Brantford

Jul 16, 2008 04:02 PM
Barbara Brown
Paul Legall
The Hamilton Spectator


BRANTFORD–A convicted terrorist ordered deported from Canada two decades ago is still living with his family in a modest semi-detached bungalow in Brantford.

Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad made international headlines in 1968 when he and an accomplice attacked an Israeli commercial airliner at the airport in Athens. They killed one passenger and destroyed the plane in a failed escape bid.

Nineteen years and several countries later, Mohammad entered Canada after lying about his terrorist past. Immigration Canada caught him and ordered him deported in December 1988.

But appeal after appeal has delayed his expulsion
, and there's no indication the man who describes himself as a Palestinian freedom fighter will be going anywhere soon.

[...]

On Dec. 15, 1988, an immigration adjudicator ruled Mohammad should be expelled from the country because he had concealed his role in a politically motivated attack on a jetliner at the Athens airport on Dec. 26, 1968, with 50 passengers and crew aboard.

Under orders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the then-25-year-old guerrilla fighter and another man hurled grenades and sprayed the plane with machine-gun fire.

An Israeli passenger was killed when hit by shrapnel
.

Mohammad and his accomplice were arrested at the airport. In 1970, a Greek court convicted Mohammad of manslaughter and other charges, sentencing him to 17 years in jail.

He was freed a few months later after another Palestinian terrorist group hijacked a plane and threatened to kill the passengers unless the government released Mohammad
.

After being pardoned by Greece, Mohammad lived in different parts of the Middle East, including Lebanon, where he married his wife in 1976.

The couple spent a few months in Cyprus in the 1980s until he was barred from re-entering the country for security reasons in 1984 – something he didn't mention to Canadian authorities.

In his application for residency to Canada in 1987, Mohammad denied being convicted of any crime.

He also claimed no involvement in any political organization since he was 18 years old. In fact, he had been a card-carrying member for years of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
– a militant group dedicated to an armed struggle against Israel.

As a result of these lies and omissions, he was ordered deported in 1988. But Mohammad forestalled his removal by applying for refugee status.

Through seemingly inexhaustible avenues of appeal and due process of law, he has staved off deportation to Lebanon.

Not only is this man an embarrassment to this country's refugee system he illustrates everything wrong with it. Chief among them is the appeals process and the legal professionals who fashioned it to give them work under the auspices, I imagine, of due process and human rights and all that. How is this man able to stave off deportation for so long? How much Canadian tax payer money has been wasted just to remove this dishonest and violent man?

We cannot let this man stay. If we do then we reward his dishonesty of which his family has been complicit with and benefited from. We send a message to all criminals and terrorists in the world to come to Canada becuase if this man can get away with it then so can you. Besides, we have no problem with removing Nazi war criminals who have lived a peaceful life in Canada for several years let alone U.S. war deserters. Why should Mr. Mohammad be an exception? Recall he lied to get into the country and when caught some twenty years ago he was ordered to leave. Also recall that he willingly killed an innocent person. What about this individual's family? How would they like to know that Canada has been providing Mr. Mohammad and his family with a relatively comfortable life after he evaded justice because of an act of terrorism and threats of violence. He is still in Canada because he is abusing the due process of the legal system and, just as important, because of public ignorance which is why it is good the Star published this story, reminding Canadians how dysfunctional their nation's immigration and refugee system is.

We also need to reform the appeals process so that this sort of abuse stops. There has been some discussion that the refugee determination process takes too long but this seems to work in the claimant's favour (not to mention the immigration lawyer's wallet). It seems the longer you are here the harder it is for Canada to deport you. There should be a limit to the number of appeals and when reached the individual should be removed immediately. We cannot make allowances. If we do then we set precedence ripe for abuse and this take us back to right where we started.

Saturday, 12 July 2008

Accomodation is not integration.

Here is a piece of multicultural apologetics found, not surprisingly, in the Toronto Star, a newspaper and profit maximizing business, like all media outlets in Canada, who see immigrants as a revenue generator and as a demographic group to sell to advertisers. It is weakly written as the author failed to make the convincing point that the multicultural model is working here in Canada even though it is fairing quite badly elsewhere in the world, Denmark and the U.K. come to mind.

It is a piece of propaganda and the author doesn't have to try very hard to make his point because the piece exists to reassure the readers that the social re-engineering experiment that is multiculturalism is a success and he only needs weak examples to make his case. The lack of effort, or apparent lack of effort, is due to the fact that the benefits and perceived successes of the multicultural social model are based on assumptions that have been driven into the Canadian psyche as self evident truths, ad nauseum since its inception by the social re-engineers of the 1960s even in the presence of contradictory evidence. And so compelling evidence isn't necessary and you don't need to make a real point. Just say Canada is a multicultural country and let the propaganda system do all the thinking for you. And the propaganda system has been an success.

You can read the piece if you want but its full of tripe except this part:

For those who wish to rededicate themselves to a stronger, healthier Canada today, one good move might be to ignore some of the false alarms about minority groups' "culture" and "values" and focus on the issue immigrants say concerns them most: jobs. Statistics Canada data show that employment outcomes and economic circumstances for newcomers, especially non-white newcomers, are getting worse.

The fact that such a statement can be made without suggesting that perhaps the economic prospects of recent immigrants is getting worse may be due in part to the fact that Canada accepts too many immigrants and that lowering immigrant levels is a viable solution to the problem is a testimony to the success of the propaganda system. Even in the presence of a 950,000 application backlog, commentators do not bother themselves to suggest that a moratorium on new applications may be the answer to attack the backlog.

One of the Orwellian double thinks thrown around media and pundit commentary to the greatness of Canada and the multicultural social model is that Canada is successful in integrating newcomers. The reason why this nation is "successful" in integrating newcomers is that we don't integrate them at all: we accommodate them. That's tantamount to surrendering to the enemy on the battlefield and convincing yourself you won the war because the war is over and peace restored, even though you are now subject to foreign rule, the war is over nonetheless and there is peace, of sorts.

Re-enforcing this integration through accommodation double think is the endless commentary telling Canadians how all the eyes of the world are on us, looking to us as leaders in immigration integration and how to replicate this formula back home. The truth is no one is paying attention to us, wondering to themselves why they are failing where the Canadians are succeeding. If you are having a hard time believing this then tell me how often do you think of Denmark as a world leader and model for immigration integration. You don't because Canada is the world leader and we don't need to look elsewhere because we are the gold standard and we know this because that's what we are told, no need to think for ourselves.

Accommodation is not integration. Integration is integration, meaning adapting to the cultural mold of the nation, preserving its identity, languages, history, and culture, where differences are minimized if not erased, to be "more Canadian than Canadians", as it were. In other words, if you want to be Roman then when in Rome do as the Romans do. If that's too much to ask then don't move to Rome.

When immigration is colonialism: Arab and Somali immigrants to Denmark displace, persecute Greenlanders (Inuit Danes) in Aarhus.

You almost never read stories like this one in Canadian newspapers or find it in the Canadian mass media in general. That's because if the Canadian left doesn't see it, it therefore doesn't exist (or it's just right wing nut job lies). Driving this willful ignorance is the need to maintain the illusion of multicultural harmony that Canada, for some reason or another, has been able to achieve and everyone else on the planet since recorded time has not.

The following is an English translation from a Danish report care of Gates of Vienna. Equal recognition goes to American Thinker Blog.

Greenlanders driven out of their homes due to racist assaults

Residents’ Board is powerless when it comes to young, violent Arabs assaulting tenants.
by Karsten Bjørno


Many Greenlanders living in Gjellerup Park [a suburban high-rise district of Århus, Denmark — translator] are fed up. After several years of racist persecution and harassment by Arab and Somali tenants, they’ve now chosen to abandon the place.[...]Greenlanders in Gjellerup are assaulted, humiliated, and have stones thrown at them. These citizens from the northernmost part of Denmark mostly stay put in their apartments, afraid to go out in the open. They resemble outlaws and hunting game within the area.

They used to meet outside the library or by the local supermarket on Sigridsvej. And there used to be a tradition of Greenlanders playing soccer on Sundays. But the continuing stone-throwing stopped that.

Furthermore, the celebrations of Greenland Day on June 21st were interrupted by stone-throwing. The event took place at the Gjellerup Swimming Pool recreational area. During recent years professional guards have been required in order to secure the celebrations.

But this year — for the first time ever — the event was cancelled entirely. It had became too risky.

According to Johanne Christiansen most Greenlanders in Gjellerup have experienced harassment. A friend of hers was assaulted and robbed right outside her front door. Another friend suffered serious injuries to her face. A third one was kicked in the back by “youths” on motorbikes. A fourth one did not dare stay home alone, because she was harassed by young Arabs assaulting her and throwing stones at her windows.

Shouted insults like “F**k yourself back to Greenland, this is our Gjellerup” are quite commonplace, as are young Arabs throwing firecrackers at them.

According to the translator's comments:
The term “Greenlander” is widely used in Denmark as a designation for someone of Inuit extraction, not just another Dane living in Greenland. All “Greenlanders” are full Danish citizens and almost all speak Danish fluently. Due to Greenland’s small population, most Inuits (“Eskimos”) wanting higher education must go to the European part of Denmark, some to stay, some only for a few years.

The following comments are from American Thinker who simply takes the words right out of my mouth.

Demands for "tolerance" in the name of multiculturalism apply only to wealthy, predominantly white countries. And within them, only to whites.* A shocking situation in Denmark illustrates the point.

The world yawns as Muslim immigrants in Denmark viciously drive Danish citizens out of a suburb of Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city. The Danes in question are Greenlanders (Greenland is a province of Denmark), mostly native Inuit people who have come to mainland Denmark, and apparently suffer their own share of social problems already.

Mass immigration of the character Canada has forged is colonial in nature because we simply import, en masse, people from a select few countries. India and China have been the top two source countries of immigrants to Canada for the past two decades and already we can see how these two ethnic groups have colonized portions of Canada to resemble their homelands. And that's how the like it! They didn't come to Canada to be Canadian. They came to Canada to be Indian or Chinese, or what have you, while enjoying the benefits of living in Canada.

The Danish example illustrates that colonial mentality taken to an extreme when they have abandoned any resolve and simply feel that Denmark, or portions of it, belongs to them. To put it in their words, "F**k yourself back to Greenland, this is our Gjellerup."

Monday, 7 July 2008

Will mass immigration and multiculturalism tear Canada apart?

Now that another Canada Day has come and gone and your stomach is allowed to settle after reading all those one sided "puff pieces" about how Canada is so much better than the United States and therefore the best country in the world, which is sort of an unconscious acknowledgment of the greatness of the American nation and its people (you rarely see us comparing ourselves to the Europeans), we should take time out to consider this country's future and where mass immigration and multiculturalism may very well lead us.

When multiculturalism, and the mass immigration industry that feeds it, is ever discussed publicly it is usual through "rose coloured glasses" and in glowing terms often to the point of being embarrassing. The commentary is constrained by the present, rarely if at all does it bother itself to reflect on the current trends and look to the future. It is like someone living in present day Toronto looking out his or her window and seeing what a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multicultural utopia the city has become and talks as if it will stay in that state forever, as if some balance has been achieved never to be disturbed. Our common sense tells us that this is unrealistic and an imagination. Things change and sometimes not for the better.

Mass immigration has dramatically changed the city of Toronto in as little time as a quarter of a century. The city has gone from majority white and native born to majority non-white and foreign born within a single generation. The city was once a Conservative stronghold and now that party can't even get elected in that town and this leads me to comment on mass immigration and its implications for national unity.

Immigration Watch Canada released this weekly bulletin, a paper by Stephen Gallagher of McGill University, that touches on the potential destabilizing effects mass immigration may have on national unity.

Canada simply does not have a high profile immigration advocacy or research organization which questions the need for a mass immigration policy.

So what does all this mean for Canada’s national identity and how does it affect national unity? I would argue we are approaching a crossroads because the implications of Canada’s transition into a diasporatic country are so profound and manifest that the current studied disregard coupled with on-going fundamental demographic change is not sustainable. The implications of this transformation can be broken into the reality in Quebec and the ROC. In ROC , the rooted British and ‘northern’ connected identity has been largely buried and forgotten.

But Francophone Quebec has not forgotten its roots
. In Quebec, collective memories, stories and symbols are deeply rooted and the French language constitutes a formidable nexus of identity. In addition, given sovereignty fears and general economic sluggishness, Quebec has not been a relatively attractive destination for immigrants. Therefore, compared to Toronto and Vancouver, Montreal with 20% foreign born population in 2006 has better preserved its rooted character. Overall, unlike in the ROC, the national re-branding exercise of the sixties and seventies with its new Canadian creed and Charter of Rights did not replace the admittedly evolving Quebecois identity.

[...]

In the Canadian context, all this has real implications for national unity. Immigration has already relegated ‘British North America’ to the history books and more recently rendered national bilingualism and biculturalism unrealistic.

The danger for Canada’s national unity lies in the possibility that both conservative and socialist nationalists in Quebec will reach the conclusion that the French language and culture is more secure outside of Canada than in it.

I have been mulling this same thing over and over in my head for some time now and have come to similar conclusions but Quebec's concerns for self preservation are not the only one we should be considering. We also need to be mindful of western Canada particularly Alberta.

When election time rolls around the government has pretty much been decided at the Ontario/Manitoba border and many of those votes are immigrant votes or the so-called "ethnic vote." The vast majority of these votes resides in Canada's major cities particularly voter rich southern Ontario that hosts a sizable portion of Canada's immigrants. And invariably the "ethnic vote" is a vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. Reviewing the results of the last federal election reveals a split between rural, and Canadian, Ontario, and immigrant urban Ontario. The Conservative Party was able to capture a few seats in Ontario but only in the rural areas outside of seat heavy Toronto and the surrounding area. The vast majority of the ridings in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) went to the Liberal Party and these ridings are immigrant heavy of host sizable immigrant populations that can swing the vote.

Alberta and much of western Canada is Conservative territory in relation to their eastern cousins. The western provinces may very well start to consider secession if Ontario continues to posses the power to decide governments which are constantly Liberal governments at the most, or weak minority Conservative governments at the least. And many of the seats these parties are vying for are influenced by immigrant voters. The west may feel itself being subjected to an immigration policy designed in Ottawa which has become, more or less, a program to import more Liberal Party voters. In other words the immigration system can be manipulated to break Conservative strongholds like it did to Toronto. So, like Quebec, Alberta may feel it will have to leave confederation to ensure its political and cultural future.

There is also the potential for regions of Canada going exclusively "ethnic" and this can have destabilizing effects as well. What I mean by this is a future Asian British Columbia, hypothetically speaking but possible nonetheless, where Punjabi and Mandarin have become the dominant languages. The province may very well, firstly, split along ethnic and linguistic lines and, secondly, become a kind of "Quebec of the west coast" and seek secession so that they may also become "masters in their own house" albeit on Canadian soil.

These are real concerns and shouldn't be dismissed as alarmist. I do feel that mass immigration and officially sanctioned multiculturalism will be this nation's undoing. In other words, diversity is not this country's strength. Life has a way of handing us unintended consequences and the political dissolution of Canada may be the result of an out of control and mismanaged mass immigration system exacerbated by multiculturalism as domestic policy.

Secondly, although Canada is certainly a leader in promoting cosmopolitan objectives, there appear to be few if any enthusiastic followers. Certainly tension, debate and reflection on the need for migration controls and a strengthening of integration policies which cross over into assimilationism are mainstream preoccupations in Australia, UK and US. For continental European countries and Japan, the draw bridges are up when it comes to mass immigration and diasporatic communities are being strongly directed towards full integration. This should give Canadian decision-makers pause and stimulate a thorough review of the issues related to immigration, integration and citizenship.

This comment runs counter to the many claims made in Canada's leading newspapers that this country is looked to the world over as a leader in immigrant integration and a model to be emulated. It seems that this isn't the case at all.

Finally, Canadian national unity may be endangered by unmanaged immigration. There is an emerging sense among Francophone Quebecers that the French Fact in America may not be compatible with high levels of immigration. At one level, there is a concern that new-Quebecers tend to assimilate into English cultures. This may not be objectively true but regardless, should a consensus arise among rooted Quebecers that participating in the new Canada (with its new creed and demographic reality) is endangering the French language in Quebec, then national unity will indeed be threatened.

Few countries in the world, even immigrants to Canada, will prescribe the same mass immigration multicultural model for their native countries. Why should we?

Canada has been described as a social experiment but experiments do fail and Canada as a social experiment may very well fail. I don't want that to happed and it is not worth the risk either. Countries have dissolved or been torn asunder or divided because the "social experiment" did not work there. Who's to say that Canada will be different? Where's the assurance?

Erstwhile Parti Quebecois leader Jacques Parizeau lamented that "money and the ethnic vote" defeated Quebec nationalist dreams in the last sovereignty referendum. It seems that not money but the "ethnic vote" may eventually give him what he wanted after all. Vive le Canada, libre!

U.S. war deserter given a second chance at asylum claim.

If white American males are having their refugee claims given serious consideration you can be assured that something is really messed up with Canada's refugee system.

You can read the following in full here at the Toronto Star.

Asylum bid to be reheard

Court rules on case of U.S. army deserter
Jul 05, 2008 04:30 AM
Colin Perkel
THE CANADIAN PRESS


Canada's refugee board has been ordered to take another look at an American deserter's failed bid for asylum in an unprecedented court ruling that could affect scores of other U.S. soldiers who have refused to fight in Iraq.

In yesterday's decision, which came as Americans celebrated Independence Day, the Federal Court found the Immigration and Refugee Board made mistakes in turning down Joshua Key's claim for asylum.

[...]

While the board deemed him credible, it nixed his claim for refugee status on the grounds he was not required to systematically commit war crimes even if he had to violate the Geneva Conventions.

Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes disagreed.

[...]

In turning down several similar asylum claims, the refugee board has consistently held that the U.S. is a democracy, which affords deserters due judicial process.

I said it before and I am going to say it again. Everyone in the world knows, and I mean EVERYONE, that if you are going to make a refugee claim Canada is the place to do it.

Someone once remarked that "Canada is a land of trusting fools." No truer words have ever been said.

Biggest Immigration Law firm in the United States under investigation over hiring advice.

Makes you wonder if the same thing is happening here too. This is care of Immigration Watch Canada.

The nation's largest immigration law firm is under federal scrutiny over whether it helped major U.S. corporations disqualify American job applicants and give thousands of high-paying positions to immigrants.

The unprecedented Labor Department inquiry centers on Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy ­ a New York firm at the forefront of a political effort to ease hiring of skilled foreign workers.

The Labor Department is auditing all pending applications for legal immigrant workers the firm has filed on behalf of its corporate clients.

Fragomen's prestigious client roster includes General Electric Co., IBM Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp. and Bank of America Corp., according to company publications and trade journals. The firm also represents The Associated Press on immigration issues.

The Associated Press? I'm sure the reports were fair and objective and totally free of bias.

We get the same up here in Canada. When immigration issues come up for public discussion those guiding the discourse are usually immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, and other so-called "stakeholders." Dissenting voices like mine are usually marginalized if not ignored outright. I think it's because I'm a racist or something like that.

Sunday, 6 July 2008

The excesses of feminism and the end of Canada: Outsourcing childbirth to sustain a dying nation.

This two part piece was brought to my attention at five feet of fury. It's a good read and it raises some challenging and necessary questions regarding to what extent feminism has contributed to the death of Canada and the west in general.

I am not a feminist and I believe feminism has gone too far. I support equal rights for women but not everything feminists claim for the female gender is necessarily a right. One example is abortion. Since when do the rights of women trump the rights of the unborn? Both are human beings albeit ones at different stages of development. So why is it a woman's human right to deny life to the most vulnerable of Canadians so that she can go on enjoying hers? It's hypocritical and absurd.

As for nation building feminism has disrupted the sole unit - the family unit - by which a country depends on for population increase. Feminism has introduced confusion into the family unit by confusing gender roles. It compels women to take on the role of the man and forces men to increasingly take on the role of the woman. Because of this women feel that they are less of a woman if they are dispossessed of a career or meaningful work leaving them with less time, and sometimes even less care, for child bearing and rearing. To be blunt, feminism has debased motherhood to notions of slavery and sub human status.

The mad rush of women into the workforce has increased the competition for school placement and for decent work that men traditionally depended on as the sole bread winner to raise their family. This created inflationary effects via increased consumption and deflationary effects on incomes because of the increased labour pool causing many women to take jobs - and taking them away from their families - out of necessity and help their husbands meet the fiscal needs of the family.

The piece touches on these things and more. Here are some pertinent quotes:

In all of this progress, the traditional family was slowly destroyed. What had taken thousands of years to preserve mankind, the family unit involving one man providing the food and shelter, and one woman providing the care and maintenance of home, was erased in a few decades. As shown in the following graph, divorces in Canada have risen from 6.4 per 100,000 people in 1921, to a peak of 362.3 per 100,000 in 1987. It is certainly no coincidence that with increased liberty for women, independence, and the same inclination toward self-serving pursuits of happiness as men, that families would be left shattered as a result.

[...}

Exacerbated by the rise of women in western civilization is the inflationary effects in the cost of living. As women remained by the side of their men, the average household income in Canada rose and rose over the years. So it goes, as the status quo increased in size, it also diminished those trying to eke out an existence in the "traditional" family role. In recent years it has almost become impossible for a man to be a sole provider for a family, as he is competing with an economy in which it is expected that a man and a woman will both be working in order to support themselves. It is also no coincidence, therefore, that with both persons working, there would be a dramatic fall in the birth rate of the nation. This decline in birth rate has affected almost all nations in which women have attained near equal rights status with men.

The side effect of this issue is that countries like Canada become dependent on "out-sourcing" their population growth, too busy are they with working [and consuming, as a by-product of our confused notion of what capitalism is] to have children of their own. According to our own government, immigration is a primary strategy for dealing with population deficit...

The result of the rise of feminism in western civilization has been a double-edged sword, affording Canadians the luxuries of an increase in income and wealth, at the expense of outsourcing population growth and rapid demographic shifts from the mainly European settlement population. Added to this is the destruction of the nuclear family, high divorce rates, leading to psychological problems, increased crime, and higher rates of poverty. As the economy evolves to reflect the status quo of one man and one woman working all the time simultaneously, it becomes more and more difficult for Canadians to live in the traditional role where the woman stays at home and has children.

[...]

...Filling the void in population are immigrants who have arrived so rapidly that towns which existed in Canada for hundreds of years have changed their demographic majorities almost overnight.

As Mark Steyn has pointed out, the west has turned the third world into a kind of nursery producing the babies necessary for population growth that we in the civilized west can't be bothered to have, being too preoccupied pursuing our fleeting and increasingly selfish and vain childless (or one child) lives. The unfortunate consequence of this is the death of the nation and the inevitable replacement of the population. We Canadians are being replaced and you can see this already on the streets of Toronto where half the city is foreign born, where the city is "visible minority" majority, where ethnic colonies and ghettos occupy sizable, and increasing, portions of the city and any sense of being in Canada is elusive if not absent.

And twits like this one at the Toronto Star doesn't help much either.

The Canadian government should concentrate its efforts on promoting and strengthening the Canadian family and raise the birth rate beyond replacement levels. Relying on immigration is cheap and easy and only satisfies the short term ambitions of ethnic vote buying political parties where the long term consequences of their myopic actions is taking this country away from us.

Canada, my country, the country I love, is rapidly disappearing and is being surrendered wholesale under the guise of immigration masked in the language of nation building. It is colonialism, it is the rapid surrender of land to foreign populations that is more characteristic of an invasion than immigration. And the cult of self, a child of feminism amongst others, makes this possible.

A little bit of sacrifice and love of country will do Canada some good.