Immigration Built The Country. Immigration Will Destroy It.
The silence emanating from "no one is illegal" is deafening.
Below is an excerpt from this story."Some whose claim was denied were able to obtain a humanitarian exemption after establishing ties to Canada that the government was reluctant to uproot. In Mr. Singh's case, being paralyzed was not enough to get a humanitarian exemption. Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said that the Minister of Immigration was right to deport Mr. Singh."The Minister and his officials did the right thing by not granting humanitarian relief, rewarding flagrant illegality in his case," he said."But Harsha Walia of No One Is Illegal, which advocates for refugees, said that Canada still has to live with the uncomfortable truth that Mr. Singh's medical care isn't to the standard that he was getting in Canada. "It's not whether he's getting medical care," she said. 'It's the standard of care.' "No... Canada does not have to live with ANY "uncomfortable truth".It's just mind-boggling that people like Walia are given roles of authority and utter such stupid admonishments as that one. No One Is Illegal's motto must be "never admit defeat". Just kick, scream and distort facts whenever the opportunity arises, but never admit defeat.
I sense many people within the immigration industry distance themselves from "no one is illegal" but they don't oppose them either. They still generate work for them by their advocacy.I get the felling there is more going on at "no one is illegal" then just refugee and immigration advocacy. I get the feeling they have an anit-white, anti-establishment (it's the same thing to them) agenda and refugees and immigrants make useful weapons. At least that's the vibe they give off.So that's why I ask they question. If the first European settlers were illegal then why aren't immigrants and refugees to Canada today.
I'd advise you all to learn about colonization and you should be able to find the answers for yourself. There is a difference between "settlement", "colonization" or "occupying" territories in the form of a colonial state and migration. From what I see there seems to be a lot of information on their website that you could read through to find the answers for yourself.
Ah yes. The very skillful art of the progressive left of giving different definitions to words that have in essence the same meaning.So let's see. When whites do it it is called "colonization" where non-whites become victims. When non-whites do it it is called "settlement" and the host society (in this case majority white Canada) is the beneficiary.Gotta love that Orwellian double think.Sorry pal it is the same thing. Canada's immigration and refugee system is the present day ancestor of its colonial past. It is the permanent presence of a foreign people on indigenous "stolen lands".So that being the case all non-indigenous people in Canada including the latest waves from Asia and South Asia and beyond are "colonizing" Canada by "settling" on "stolen land". This makes Canada an "occupied territory". You follow me? No? Of course you don't.
Post a Comment