Sunday, 1 February 2009

Immigrant, Racial Minorities Speak Out And Criticize The Two Headed Beast That Is Immigration And Multiculturalism.

Members of racial minority groups who have immigrated to countries with white host majority societies have also condemned the misdirection that a mismanaged immigration policy is taking the nation. Here are some of their voices.

This one is from U.K. based Daily Mail.

The migrants who just don't belong, by the Archbishop of York

By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 12:20 AM on 14th January 2009

Immigrants to Britain in the past five decades have been treated like hotel guests who 'do not belong', the Archbishop of York said yesterday.

Dr John Sentamu said the failure of migrants to integrate had contributed to the collapse of a common British culture and the lack of a national sense of direction.

He called for recognition of the Christian heritage which used to bind the nation together and for a revival of the civic values once represented by myriad local clubs, churches and trade unions.

The Archbishop's powerful attack on uncontrolled immigration and on the Left-wing interpretation of multiculturalism that encourages migrants to ignore traditional British values, was made in a speech to Gordon Brown's think tank, the Smith Institute.

Dr Sentamu, a trustee of the Institute, has previously criticised multiculturalism and official neglect of the importance of Christian thinking and history.

But yesterday's speech was the first admission from a senior Church of England figure that large-scale immigration has brought serious problems as well as benefits.

Ugandan-born Dr Sentamu, who came to Britain in the 1970s, said it was important to remember that Britain had always provided refuge for economic migrants.

He said 250,000 Jewish people had come before the First World War, and had integrated and been accepted.

'What happened after the Second World War was a different phenomenon,' Dr Sentamu continued.

'For the first time, significant numbers of immigrants from a non Judaeo-Christian background settled in the UK.'

He referred to the view of Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks that until the 1950s immigrants were like guests in a country house, who were expected to assimilate British values and to belong to the existing society.

But with the decline of empire and the growth of Commonwealth immigration, the pattern had become more like a hotel.

Comparing the U.K. to a hotel? Why does that sound so familiar? Read the comments to the article.

This one is also out of the U.K. and is also from the Daily Mail.

Curry king Sir Gulam Noon calls for a ten-year ban on all migrants

By Glen Owen
Last updated at 11:43 PM on 29th November 2008

The controversial Labour donor known as the ‘curry king’ has called for a ban on immigration for a decade.

Indian-born Sir Gulam Noon, who was at the centre of the cash-for-honours investigation involving Tony Blair, argues that unless the Government ‘shuts the door’ on new arrivals, British society will become chronically divided.

Sir Gulam, 72, who came to Britain in 1966 with just £50 in his pocket, says the country is now ‘full’.

Last week he was caught up in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, barricading himself into his suite in the Taj Mahal Palace hotel for nine hours as gunmen ran amok until he was rescued by firemen in a crane.

His remarks on immigration, made in his new autobiography, are some of the most outspoken ever made by a senior member of Britain’s ethnic population.

‘Bluntly, I think we are self-sufficient now,’ he writes. ‘We should wait for five or ten years, until all the newcomers have been properly integrated and assimilated into the country. Until then we should just shut the door.’

Out of Canada we have this one written by Tahir Aslam Gora who is a Pakistani-Canadian writer living in Burlington, Ontario.

Parties can only lose by chasing the ethnic vote

October 30, 2008
The Hamilton Spectator
(Oct 30, 2008)

"We should vote for those candidates and parties who are sympathetic to Muslims," a radical Islamic magazine, published in Toronto, said about the recent federal election.

"It's our duty to uphold Islamic laws and Islam's supremacy in Canada and all over the world, so vote for those who seem to further our agenda," the Urdu-language magazine suggests in the next paragraph.

These lines reveal the intention -- and an attempt -- by some of our ethnic groups to influence the political process.


It sometimes looked like Liberal candidates were paying more attention to ethnic issues than to national issues.


The Liberals and NDP both claim small-L liberal values but they are too close to the ethnic-religious pockets. Their left-of-centre stance has been messed up with their support of some closed religious communities.

The Liberals and the NDP should both understand that exploiting ethnic votes is neither going to serve their purposes, nor help ethnic communities. By encouraging religious ghettos in the name of liberalism, these parties are not helping them to be an open part of Canadian society.


The Liberals and NDP should denounce closed-style religious communities and demand that they integrate into Canada's secular society.

For a more in depth critique of Canadian style multiculturalism I recommend reading Selling Illusions: The Cult Of Multiculturalism In Canada written by Trinidadian immigrant Neil Bissoondath.

So I guess these people are racists? Not exactly. They are typically ignored because the racist ad hominem attack doesn't stick. They are, instead, denounced as being selfish for criticizing an immigration policy that they benefited from. The thing is Canada's immigration system hurts immigrants too.

Canada's immigration system is out of control and has been terribly mismanaged due to selfish influences. It is Canadian tax payers, working and middle class families, and recent immigrants who suffer the brunt of the costs. A smaller immigration intake will allow for a better managed system. As much as we would like to help everyone in the world this is simply not feasible. We can only help a tiny few and if allowing 260,000+ immigrants to settle in Canada has only netted more costs then benefits then we know that 260,000+ immigrants is too many.


Anonymous said...

I think this article here also underscores some of the points you have been making

Anonymous said...

To further underscore the major theme of this post, in addition to the above link, this video explains the dire circumstances by the numbers.

Note: The sex "related videos" to the right, are not related, in any way, to this video.

Anonymous said...

Maclean's and Canadian Business magazines recently launched a series of online debates, called "Thinking the Unthinkables." The first installment features Maclean's national editor Andrew Coyne and former head of Canadian Immigration Services James Bissett debating this statement: Should Canada adopt a more wide-open immigration policy, or should we be more focused on targeted immigration based on Canada's market needs. You can view the debates here:

Anonymous said...

It's also more than the "nativists" that are speaking out in the U.S. and criticizing our respective immigration policies.

The real block to any reform measures lies with the controlled (MSM) mainstream media outlets.

Anonymous said...

Unrelated :