Thursday, 28 May 2009

Bringing Foreign Wars To Canada's Shores Is Part Of The Cultural Mosaic (and don't act like you didn't see it coming).

Canada is no longer perceived as a country having been reshaped into the world's suburb, a "nation of nations". It should come to no surprise when conflicts in foreign lands between warring ethnic or national tribes finds its way here. The myriad of ethnic and national colonies, what we euphemistically refer to as "communities" or "enclaves", that have taken root on Canadian soil are more or less land claims by foreign nationals of Canadian soil and thus de facto extensions of foreign national territories into Canada.

Also, since multiculturalism has killed the Canadian (because the Canadian is an enemy to multiculturalism since it would mean that there is something to assimilate into and distinguish who is and who isn't a Canadian) Canada has lost a means to unite disparate people into a singular national identity that will hopefully do away with past ethnic grievances since one is born anew, if you will, by becoming Canadian.

Being Canadian has now been reduced to citizenship claims, entitlements, and acts of civic responsibility. It is no longer a national character. This way one can call himself or herself a Canadian without actually being one. Calling oneself a Canadian is telling someone what part of the world you live in and not necessarily who you are. If you call yourself a Chinese-Canadian you are saying that you are Chinese who lives in Canada. If you call yourself an Italian-Canadian you are saying you are Italian and live in Canada.

The multicultural model does not ameliorate ethnic, racial, or national relations. It can make things worse by nurturing grievances even to future generations. With a weakened or destroyed national identity Canada is raising a generation of citizens who identify with a particular ethnic tribe and their ancestral homeland creating solidarity with the members of the tribe at the expense of fostering unity with fellow nationals.

Sri Lankan Tamils and Sri Lankan Sinhalese call themselves Canadian yet are at odds over a conflict in a country they left. If they truly were Canadians then there should be no animosity because their adopted Canadian identity should unite them. Yet that is not the case and that's because they are not Canadians just citizens of Canada. They are Sri Lankan Tamils and Sri Lankan Sinhalese living in Canada and both groups identify with a culture and people in another country. They live in the established Sri Lankan Tamil and Sri Lankan Sinhalese colonies of Canada, de facto territorial extensions of Sri Lanka, and what happens in Sri Lanka inevitable makes its way here.

The multicultural harmony of Toronto is superficial. Just because people are not at each other's throats doesn't mean they get along. There are no bridges between the Jamaican community and the Chinese community, the Indian community and the Ukrainian community, the Italian community and the Somali community, the Muslim community and the Gay community. These communities do not care to live with each other. So long as "the other" stays on their side of the fence then every thing is all right and it seems that's how it is preferred since there is no Canadian identity to unite them nor is one wanted.

Civil wars never end, they just move to Canada

How the conflicts of the 21st century are being waged by other means right here in the mosaic
May 23, 2009 04:30 AM
Olivia Ward
Foreign Affairs reporter


Toronto's recent Tamil demonstrations, protesting the killing of civilians in a Sri Lankan military operation against the Tamil Tigers, ignited new controversy over the limit to which diasporas can continue their struggles in Canada. The burning of a mainly Sinhalese Buddhist temple sparked fearful and furious reactions from those who declared that "foreign conflicts" had no place here.

The media, too, have been caught up, as cyberspace sizzles with angry diatribes from both sides.

The Sri Lankan conflict is not unique. As electronic communication burgeons, so have journalists' email baskets and Twitter lists, overflowing with complaints or entreaties from pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups, Serbian and Kosovar exiles, Iranian dissidents and advocates for Armenia, Tibet, Burma, Afghanistan, Somalia, Darfur and Haiti – to name a few.

While some diasporas have been actively engaged in reconstruction, development and peace-making in their original countries, others are more hardline than the people they left behind, and the polarized debates they arouse make it more difficult to find accommodation or peace.

"Politics these days is often acted out by populations who are geographically removed from the sites of conflict," notes a paper by Camilla Orjuela of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. "But although politics is to a large extent `deterritorialized' – it can be carried out (no matter) where you are – it has not ceased to be about territory."

link

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Canada Should Reconsider Accepting Refguees From Sri Lanka Now That The Civil War Has Come To An End.

With the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), a terrorist group banned in Canada, Sri Lanka's Civil war has effectively come to an end (and the likely start of an insurgency). You can read about it here and here.

The civil war has been good to Sri Lankan Tamils. It provided for them a context to build a persecution story around and make refugee claims in advanced western societies like the U.K., Australia, Germany, France, the U.S., and especially Canada.

It is estimated that the number of expat Sri Lanka Tamils is 600,000-800,000 world wide. If that is correct then Canada is home to over a quarter to one third of them at an estimated 200,000 to 250,000. Toronto alone is home to more Sri Lankan Tamils than any individual Sri Lankan city prompting this man to call Toronto the largest Sri Lankan Tamil city in the world. As a percentage of the population that is not true but as numbers go then he is right.

The large Sri Lankan Tamil community in Canada and especially Toronto can be explained by what is called "self selecting immigration". What this means is that immigrants literally invite themselves into Canada mostly by way of refugee claims and visas as a way to bypass the points system which is how Canada determines who it deems fit to come to the country based on Canada's economic need, not the immigrant's. Sri Lankan Tamils for the most part invited themselves into Canada, not the other way around.

Canada is to blame for this, not Sri Lanka's Tamils. The only thing they can be accused of doing is seeing a good thing and taking advantage of it like any good opportunist. Canada has created a refugee system that invites abuse and rewards it. With an inexplicably high acceptance rate for Sri Lankan refugees, reaching to a little over 80% at one time, Canada was understandably flooded with refugee claims from Sri Lanka to the tune of thousands each year since the odds were in their favour. The result: the largest Sri Lankan Tamil community in the world in as little time as a quarter of a century. Not bad seeing how Canada has no historical or cultural ties to the island nation. Indeed, before Sri Lankan Tamils began protesting on Toronto's streets most Canadians didn't even know Sri Lanka existed let alone find it on a map.

But are Sri Lanka's refugees really refugees or ever were? If they were Sinhalese then no. Sri Lanka's sizable Tamil minority may have legitimate grievances but are they bad enough to grant them asylum in Canada and to so many? I have my doubts. Here is one snipet of interest from this Toronto Star story.

"The LTTE is defeated. That is a fact. And I am in agreement with that," said Ratnasingam, who studied accountancy in Colombo in the late 1990s, fled to Singapore, and then arrived in Canada in 2001. "But the fighting ... can only be solved with a political solution. Peace is not the absence of violence. Peace is justice."

His path to Canada is pertinent to what I am getting at. What exactly was this individual fleeing? The fighting in Sri Lanka is concentrated in the north eastern part of the country yet Colombo, where this man studied accountancy, is located in the south west and away from the conflict. Colombo is where famed British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke spent the latter years of his life. Colombo, it seems, is a pretty safe place for refugees to go to exercise what is called "internal flight" which is the seeking of refuge within one's home country. Also the man said he studied accountancy. What kind of persecuted minority targeted for genocide has the opportunity to study accountancy in their land of alleged persecution? In any event, he still did not feel safe enough in Sri Lanka so he fled to Singapore which causes me to ask what persecuted minority targeted for genocide can freely obtain a passport from the government that is persecuting him and board a plane to seek "refuge" in another country? By the U.N.'s own Declaration on Human Rights a refugee is expected to make an asylum claim in the first safe country of passage which in this case was Singapore. But why Singapore when he could have fled to the Tamil dominated southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu which is a lot closer than Singapore and a heck of a lot closer than Canada. However he still found his way to Toronto. So the man rejected the internal flight option, rejected a safe country of passage, rejected finding refuge in Tamil Nadu, and came to Canada at last. This sounds like asylum shopping to me and I think this is characteristic of the Sri Lankan Tamil community as a whole. These people were not honestly seeking refuge in Canada. They simply wanted to immigrate.

In a related piece we read from this Asian Tribune article.

I, as he once was, was an ardent supporter of ‘Eelam’ I came to this country [Australia] by using the excuse of ‘genocide’ by the Sinhala, Buddhist people when in reality, I left the country with a passport issued by the Sri Lankan Government, and boarded a plane from her international airport.

Before ‘becoming a refugee’ I lived amongst the Sinhala people all my life, went to school with 99% of my friends from that community, enjoyed life with them and graduated from one of that country’s premier Universities.


I was able to find gainful employment...in this country, because of the quality of education I received, free of charge, from that country.

As soon as I landed in Australia, I began working towards obtaining my Permanent Resident Visa by betraying and demonizing my best and dearest friends. I used the ‘1983 black July’ riots to justify my case and submitted may case though I knew very well that, no decent Sinhala person was even remotely involved in it. I knew it was not an ‘ethnic problem. I knew it was a ‘social’ problem whereby the people living on the fringes of society, made use of the situation to loot and grab whatever they could from wherever they could. They came from all ethnic groups including Tamils.

And from another we read from here:

As Tamils how many of us would dare to condemn the numerous atrocities committed by the LTTE against civilians in the South. We are only too keen to complain about being searched at checkpoints, raiding of lodges, etc. How many have been apprehended for trying to smuggle arms and ammunition into the South concealed in fish lorries, official vehicles of GA's ICRC, etc?

[...]

On the contrary, they will make an internationally heard din about 'innocent' Tamils being harassed as if 'innocent' Tamils have a label on them proclaiming their innocence! At the same time I cannot help feeling ashamed and disgraced by our Tamil brethren whenever they are successful in attempts at destroying innocent civilian life in the South.

[...]

Finally, I wish to state that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world where Sinhalese can call their home and where Theravada Buddhism is found. It is their birthplace and their birthright to remain as a majority community while others at various times have shown that their loyalties are divided. The situation today is such that a Sinhalese or Muslim student cannot enter the precincts of the Jaffna University, whereas Tamil students can freely go about in the South.

Many words are being spent by Sri Lankan Tamil protesters in Toronto to highlight past grievances and conflicts to paint themselves as victims. But how are things in Sri Lanka in 2009? Approximately 18% of Sri Lanka's population is ethnic Tamil. Tamil is recognized as an official language of Sri Lanka, Tamil political parties are functioning in the country that send Tamils to the Sri Lankan parliament, and the Sri Lankan government has a goal to return 300,000 Tamil refugees to their homes. How is this persecution? How is this genocide? Please tell me. I'm sure Holocaust surviving Jews, descendants of Armenians, Rwandans, non-Arab Sudanese, East Timor under Suharto, those of the former Yugoslavia, Ukrainians under Stalin, post-Colombian Amerindians, and so on, want to know.

It seems the government in Colombo is intent on creating a lasting peace on the island nation with minority participation. I see little reason why Canada should be accepting most refugees from Sri Lanka now. It's time to bring some integrity back to Canada's refugee system since much of it has been stolen by those who abused it.

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Canada's Nanny Program Is A Symptom Of An Immigration System That Does More Harm Than Good.

I have harangued the Toronto Star newspaper over its one sided and self serving treatment of the immigration issue. Rarely does it criticize any aspect of the immigration system and when it does it is to condemn Canada for not doing enough to assist and protect immigrants.

Occasionally a questioning voice is published such as this article written by the Toronto Star's Thomas Walkom. With news of alleged abuses of nannies by a sitting Liberal MP making the rounds Walkom asks:

Why does Canada have a special, temporary immigrant program for nannies? If we truly lack qualified live-in caregivers, why not admit them through the normal immigration stream?

And if we don't need foreigners to take care of children or the elderly, why admit anyone at all?

He notes that the nanny program is essentially a "legalized system of indentured servitude" and has been throughout its thirty year existence. Also he points out, like I did here in this post, that the potential to secure landed immigrant status after a mere two years of work is what makes these nannies co-operate in their exploitation.

More important, they have an incentive to stay silent. Those able to prove they have worked 24 months within a three-year period may apply for permanent resident status – the first step toward coveted Canadian citizenship.

It's a back-door immigration route that,
at one level, satisfies all of the actors. Families with young kids (or, in the Dhallas' case, an elderly parent) get domestic help without having to pay the wages a Canadian might demand. Foreigners who otherwise don't qualify to get into Canada win a chance at citizenship.

Meanwhile, governments are able to appease middle-class voters who might otherwise demand a national child and elder-care system.

As a Commons committee reported this month, the nanny program is just one small part of a "temporary" foreign-worker system that has careered out of control.

Nanny work is by its character temporary work and if they are hired from abroad then they are temporary foreign workers and thus should not be allowed to apply for landed immigrant status. We don't allow this opportunity to migrant farm workers and nannies shouldn't be an exception.

Some would argue that we should extend this opportunity to all temporary foreign workers but that would do more harm than good since the potential for landed immigrant status is what makes temporary foreign workers exploitable.

Also, it is clear that temporary foreign workers are the cheap and easy option for employers who don't want to pay Canadians to do a job that they otherwise would do if it paid a decent income. It also discourages businesses and the government to invest in training a skilled workforce. In other words Canadians lose out.
First, it discourages employers and governments from training Canadians to do necessary jobs. Why spend money training unemployed citizens to build houses when skilled carpenters can be imported from abroad?

Second, it keeps a brake on wages. If employers can tap into the global reserve army of labour, they have no incentive to increase the productivity, and thus the wages, of their existing workers.

[...]

The recent decision of the cash-strapped Toronto district school board to shutter a state-of-the-art Scarborough trade school and the Manitoba government's campaign to recruit skilled tradespeople from Iceland are not unrelated.

If Canada gave landed immigrant status to all temporary foreign workers it would not only double Canada's immigrant intake to over 400,000 a year it would flood the labour market with unskilled and semi-skilled workers making life in Canada more difficult for the most vulnerable of its citizens. Canada has to be more self reliant to meet its labour market needs. Immigration should be a last resort.

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Is Mass Immigration And Multiculturalism Creating A Racist Society? Contemplating The Failed Social Experiment.

Canada has been described as a "social experiment", proof that a myriad of disparate people gathered into a single social and political context can live in peaceful coexistence. But sometimes experiments fail and depending on who you ask Canada as a "social experiment" is either working or failing, a conclusion often arrived at by way of ideology.

I, for one, think the multicultural model is not working and some recent publications suggest this.

Macleans Magazine recently published a piece on Canadian attitudes toward people of faith.

Canadians like to think of their country as a model for the world of how all sorts of people can get along together. But when it comes to the major faiths other than Christianity, a new poll conducted for Maclean’s finds that many Canadians harbour deeply troubling biases. Multiculturalism? Although by now it might seem an ingrained national creed, fewer than one in three Canadians can find it in their hearts to view Islam or Sikhism in a favourable light. Diversity? Canadians may embrace it in theory, but only a minority say they would find it acceptable if one of their kids came home engaged to a Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. Understanding? There’s not enough to prevent media images of war and terrorism from convincing almost half of Canadians that mainstream Islam encourages violence.

I love this line: "Canadians like to think of their country as a model for the world of how all sorts of people can get along." That's something only journalists, politicians, and immigrants who have no desire to integrate into Canadian society say. Same thing with multiculturalism is "ingrained as a national creed". The truth is most Canadians have no real need for multiculturalism as it is irrelevant in the conduct of their daily lives. Sure, they may eat Chinese food every now or then or enjoy a samosa but they can live without them and many do.

Those findings leave little doubt that Canadians with a Christian background travel through life benefiting from a broad tendency of their fellow citizens to view their religion more favourably than any other. Across Canada, 72 per cent said they have a “generally favourable opinion” of Christianity. At the other end of the spectrum, Islam scored the lowest favourability rating, just 28 per cent. Sikhism didn’t fare much better at 30 per cent, and Hinduism was rated favourably by 41 per cent. Both Buddhism, at 57 per cent, and Judaism, 53 per cent, were rated favourably by more than half the population—but even Jews and Buddhists might reasonably ask if that’s a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty result.

So, the majority of those surveyed view Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism in an unfavourable light while at the same time Judaism and Buddhism enjoy majority support albeit marginal. I think the reason for this is that Canadians equate Islam with Arab, and Sikhism and Hinduism with Indian, and view the adherents to these faiths as being actively engaged in a cultural program to transform Canada into reflections of their homelands whereas Jews and Buddhists are not. In that sense the negative impression Canadians have of Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism is a rejection of the cultural transformation these faiths are imposing on Canadian society.

Angus Reid took that debate national, asking how far governments should go to accommodate minorities. A strong majority of 62 per cent agree with the statement, “Laws and norms should not be modified to accommodate minorities.” A minority, 29 per cent, agreed with the alternative statement, “On some occasions, it makes sense to modify specific laws and norms to accommodate minorities.” Another nine per cent weren’t sure. In Quebec, 74 per cent were against changing laws or norms, the highest negative response rate on the accommodation question in the country.

And:

Leaders of religious groups contacted by Maclean’s commonly said their impression is that urban attitudes are more open, especially in Toronto and Vancouver—huge magnets for immigrants. Yet familiarity does not appear to be a reliable predictor of tolerance or acceptance. The Sikh community is prominent on the West Coast, but only 28 per cent of British Columbians surveyed reported a favourable impression of Sikhism. That was well below the figures in provinces where Sikhs are far less numerous, like neighbouring Alberta, where 47 per cent reported a favourable opinion of Sikhism, or Ontario, where Sikhism was rated favourably by 35 per cent.

In other words the people who have to live with them don't like them or care about their religion. Not exactly the kind of thing we are being told by our elites in the media and in politics.

Much of the article laments over the failure of us plebes to fully digest the patrician world view that has been shoveled down our throats over the past 30 odd years. What the elites don't get is that Canadians never wanted the multicultural model that has been imposed upon them and they still don't and if we don't abandon it we may be fostering an increasingly racist and intolerant society which brings me to this Toronto Star article. In it we read:

Crunching thousands of numbers from 41,666 people interviewed in nine languages, the just-published study found skin colour – not religion, not income – was the biggest barrier to immigrants feeling they belonged here. And the darker the skin, the greater the alienation.

[...]

The more discrimination someone faced, the more they were likely to identify with their ethnic group, rather than as Canadian.

Visible minorities identified themselves much more strongly by their ethnic origin through the second, third and fourth generations.

While 65 per cent of recent black immigrants, 70 per cent of South Asians and 52 per cent of Chinese felt they belonged in Canada, those numbers dropped to 37 per cent, 50 per cent and 44 per cent in the second generation.


A third of Chinese, South Asians, Filipino and Southeast Asians reported discrimination; half of blacks did and 40 per cent of Koreans and Japanese did.

[...]

"Among minorities born in Canada, blacks have the lowest sense of belonging, the lowest level of trust in others and the weakest sense of Canadian identity. They are the least likely to vote," Reitz and Ryerson University assistant professor Rupa Banerjee wrote in the book Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion. "Among recent immigrants, blacks have high levels of volunteers but among the second generation this has disappeared."

Should we worry?

Reitz pointed out that the first wave of migration of blacks from the south in the United States were embraced for their culture and differences in the north, creating places such as the prosperous, dynamic Harlem in New York City.

A few generations later, Harlem was a ghetto that exploded into race riots.


"I'm not saying that is going to happen here. But we have indications of social problems in communities. There is the perception of a crime problem. Some children of immigrants have high dropout rates. We ought to be asking why."

The study reminds us that multiculturalism isn't the problem. But it is and pretending it isn't doesn't adequately address the problems that are being created by mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Here are more findings from Allan Gregg you can read at his blog.

...With an aging workforce, declining birth rates, and concerns about retirement pensions, one would imagine generalized support for enhanced immigration. But research conducted by The Strategic Counsel in 2005 suggests otherwise, and that Canadians are far from sanguine about the country’s increasing diversity. A full 75 percent of those surveyed believe that Canada is currently accepting too many immigrants, and 40 percent think that immigrants from some countries “make a bigger and better contribution to Canada than others.” The breakdown is disturbing: almost 80 percent claim that European immigrants make a positive contribution, the number falling to 59 percent for Asians, 45 percent for East Indians, and plummeting to 33 percent for those hailing from the Caribbean.

[...]

...But, when asked what the focus of multicultural policy should be, by a ratio of 3.5:1 Canadians say immigrants should “integrate and become part of the Canadian culture,” rather than “maintain their [own] identity.” To some extent, it seems that Canadians, like their brethren in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, have had their fill of multiculturalism, hyphenated citizenship, and the like. While visitors often marvel at the multicultural mix evident on our city streets, there is also growing evidence that Canada’s fabled mosaic is actually fracturing into community self-segregation by ethnic group. In 1981, Statistics Canada identified three “ethnic enclaves” where more than 30 percent of a particular community consisted of a single visible minority group. According to “Visible Minority Neighbourhoods in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal,” a 2001 StatsCan report, that number had exploded to 254 ethnic enclaves. To be sure, not all of these communities are poor – Richmond, British Columbia and Markham, Ontario, whose Asian populations top 50 percent, are middle to upper-middle class areas – but an alarming number of them consist of people whose incomes fall far below the Canadian average. Despite good efforts and well-intentioned policies, poverty and disenfranchisement in Canada is increasingly taking on racial overtones.

And this:
As is the case in England, France, and other advanced liberal democracies, national unity in Canada is threatened by the growing atomization of our society.

The warning signs are already there but are being ignored becuase the failing social experiment needs to be saved to satisfy the egos of those who champion the multicultural model by proving to themselves, the country, and the world how right they are. But if it fails, and it appears that it is failing, the results will be disastrous in the form of a less harmonious, ghettoized, and increasingly racist society.

We can correct this be revamping the immigration system. The first step is to decrease immigration targets to what Canada really needs and not the needs of the immigration industry. While doing this Canada needs to give special consideration to those who best fit into Canadian society and yes, this does mean favouring European immigration much like Japan should favour Asian immigration. Secondly Canada should adopt a melting pot approach over accommodation becuase accommodation is not integration. By assuring the host population that it is not being overrun by an influx of immigrants who threaten to replace them as host population Canadian society will be a more accepting place for immigrants. Ironically, if it is the intention to make Canada a more racist and intolerant society then all we need to do is stay the course.

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Working As A Nanny Shouldn't Be An Avenue To Citizenship (the exploitation works both ways).

There has been much in the news of late about the exploitation of foreign workers employed as caregivers. You can read about it here and here.

Typically the caregivers are Filipino females "lured" to Canada with bogus jobs by an agency that saddles them with brokerage fees and sometimes forces them to work illegally while dispossessing them of their passports. From the first link we read:

Documents obtained by the Star show Canada Border Services Agency officials believe there is "ongoing fraud and misrepresentation" within the program, but the immigration and human resources departments are not taking action.

The Star presented its investigative findings to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney who said his department is aware there is abuse in the program.

"We have this whole industry, most of which is unlicensed and unregulated, and large numbers of unscrupulous operations in Canada and throughout the world who exploit people's dreams and hopes to come to Canada," he said.

I can understand these caregivers crying foul but the exploitation of the system works both ways.

The promised payoff for the nannies is a chance at landed immigrant status after two years of work. The number of foreign nannies given permits to work in Canada has tripled in the last five years (from 3,458 in 2002 to 11,878 in 2007, the most recent information available). Most are from the Philippines.

Granting landed immigrant status after two years of work is the carrot luring these caregivers to Canada and it is what make the system so easily exploitable by employment agencies. But it is also nannies who wish to exploit the system as well. How many of these foreign trained caregivers will still be working as nannies once they get landed immigrant status and eventual citizenship?

Work as a nanny is by its nature a temporary job. So is seasonal farm work. Both are characterized by a labour force made up of mostly foreign workers yet one group of workers can obtain citizenship yet the other cannot. If temporary migrant workers are not allowed to obtain citizenship then why should nannies?

Nanny work is being used to queue jump into Canada. This is why they are so easily exploitable. This becomes a problem when they start leaving their occupations as nannies to compete with other Canadians for jobs that they were not brought into Canada to fill. This leaves a perpetual shortfall of caregivers in the labour market creating an open hole in the immigration system. What makes the hole even bigger is when these nannies start to import family into Canada via the family reunification stream and I should add that one doesn't need any pertinent job or language skills to enter Canada in this category. So, in essence nannies are just a means to flood the Canadian labour market with largely unskilled superfluous labour.

The solution to the problem is for Canadians to take care of their own children but who am I kidding? A more feasible solution is to classify foreign trained caregivers for what they really are: foreign trained temp workers. This way they cannot use nanny work as a pathway to citizenship therefore removing the mechanism that allows employment agencies to exploit foreign trained caregivers and for individuals to queue jump the immigration system into Canada.

Here is a related story highlighting how nanny work is being used to exploit the immigration system.

Also in a related story I bring this to your attention. It's about Canadian born self-appointed Punjabi ambassador to Canada (who moonlights as a Liberal MP for Brampton-Springdale and as a wannabe Bollywood queen I am told) Dr. Ruby Dhalla and her and her family's alleged mistreatment of their imported Filipino caregivers (hey, everyone has a Filipino caregiver so I guess she had to have one too).

The allegations are familiar to those claiming exploitation. They allege the job she offered them was bogus. Initially employed to care for her frail mother they found themselves mostly employed cleaning the family house in Mississauga and family owned chiropractic offices for long hours. They also allege the Dhalla family imported them without federal approval. Also, they allege they were withheld pay for some time and their passports were taken away. In other words the usual exploitation story.

Saturday, 2 May 2009

The 1% Ponzi Scheme: The Fallacy Of Justifying Mass Immigration On 'Unlimited Growth'.

When the Canadian economy was "booming" the mass immigration lobby said Canada needs to maintain historically high immigrant intake numbers with increases to match 1% of the population to sustain the growth. Indeed, the idea that Canada should have an immigration policy where intake numbers are calculated at 1% of the population is self serving to the mass immigration lobby since it guarantees continuous increases in immigration targets irrespective of need. Now that the "Great Recession" is upon us there seems to be little justification for continuing a mass immigration policy even in the short term. However this is not so. It seems Canada still needs to maintain high immigration targets to prepare the country for a recovery. How about that? When the economy is booming the nation needs mass immigration. When there is a recession Canada needs mass immigration.

It appears this Orwellianesque kind of "double think" is being employed to protect those who have built for themselves livelihoods that are directly dependent (immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, social workers, ethnic vote pandering urban politicians and other "rent seekers") and indirectly dependent (journalists, banks, wage suppressing interests in the business community, Realtors and land speculators) on Canada's immigration policy.

A problem inherent in the interests of the mass immigration lobby is the idea of "unlimited growth". The justification for mass immigration targets and ever increasing targets is the belief, or assumption, that growth is unlimited. But is there such a thing as unlimited growth? I'm sure this can be debated but so far as I know we live on a world of finite resources thereby placing a constraint on any notion of unfettered growth.

Here is an article I read in the business section of the Toronto Star about the slowing effect boom era debt will have on the recovery.

Whether this fragile optimism is warranted is still open to debate, but most economists agree a recovery will take root sooner or later.

Attracting far less attention is what that rebound will look like. Hopes remain for a U- or V-shaped recovery – a relatively rapid return to pre-recession economic growth rates.

But some experts are warning post-recession growth will be markedly lower than the pre-contraction boom. In their analysis, the massive debt levels that goosed economic growth before the financial crisis, and are now in the process of being unwound, were unsustainable.

The suggestion here is that part of the "boom" Canada was experiencing prior to the crash, and necessitating mass immigration levels or so we are told, was buoyed by debt and was thus artificial and unsustainable. This is why the recovery will take longer than usual because part of the prosperity we were experiencing was an illusion created by credit and debt.

Take away the orgy of easy credit and the economy is bound to grow at a slower rate, pulling down living standards in the process.

Satyajit Das, the Australia-based author of Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives, who has warned about the dangers of credit derivatives, says the recovery will be muted.

Das argues the years of economic growth that preceded this recession were essentially a Ponzi scheme built on a foundation of excessive debt and a failure to properly cost carbon emissions.

[...]

At its root, debt is instant gratification, Das said. During the boom, easy access to credit artificially boosted demand, which led companies to ramp up production.

"So gradually, if this goes on for long enough, we build massive overcapacity, because we just assumed this was going to go on forever," Das said.

Only it didn't go on forever. As in past bubbles, "we discovered we'd bought stuff for excessive prices," Das said. Bad mortgages in the United States sparked a financial crisis that spread across the globe.

Banks around the world still need to deleverage on a massive scale, which will cut the availability of credit and prompt companies and individuals to reduce borrowing and spending, Das said. That, in turn, will eat into growth.

Automakers and other manufacturers that "financialized," or got into the business of financing the things they sell, also face deleveraging, Das said. They also can't get access to money to invest.

"So this is not a financial-sector problem, this is now a real-sector problem," Das said. "And everybody will have to go back to a very old-fashioned way of doing it, so we save our cash flow, save up, build up cash balances and then do something."

Yet, Das is worried world leaders are still missing the key lesson of the global financial crisis: that "there may well be limits to growth."

When I read this article I realized it can be applied to Canada's immigration system because in a matter of speaking Canada's immigration system is akin to a ponzi scheme. By pegging immigration targets at 1% for the purposes of increasing the nation's population Canada will be forever increasing immigration levels to sustain an ever increasing population that was increased by increasing immigration levels. This system is unsustainable becuase it assumes that growth is limitless while ignoring Canada's ability to economically absorb so many immigrants and at increasing levels.

Pegging Canada's immigration levels to a constant percentage of the population is dangerous and it only benefits those who make their living in the immigration industry.