Wednesday, 30 September 2009

The Curious Case Of Suaad Hagi Mohamud.

When I first read about the Canadian government denying the re-entry of Suaad Hagi Mohamud, a Canadian citizen of Somali birth, I cringed. I knew the political left would jump all over it to castigate the current conservative minority government as racist. Also to race-bait the "red neck inbreds" and harangue them just to satisfy their sense of moral superiority. It would be more fodder to scare the government from making much needed reforms to the immigration system and to silence immigration critics.

However it looks like they leaped without looking because Ms. Mohamud has some explaining to do. According to new information first reported by the CBC Ms. Mohamud, when questioned, gave contradictory evidence. The Toronto Star reports on it here. According to the Star, migrant integrity officer Paul Jamieson says in an affidavit that he suspected the woman claiming to be Ms. Mohamud was really her sister.
First of all, the woman bore a family resemblance to Mohamud's passport photo, he said.

As well, a sister Jihan, younger by 10 months, appeared on Mohamud's Canadian immigration application years ago; the woman in Kenya knew Mohamud's basic biographical details, and finally; "in my experience it is common for imposters to be related to the rightful holder of the passport," he said.

Paul Jamieson interviewed the woman three times over a five day period while she was in Kenyan custody. According to Jamieson the woman claiming to be Ms. Mohamud said she was a student at Humber College and named Randy Jackson as one of her professors but he found no such professor listed on the college website. She also could not name the Canadian prime minister or Toronto's mayor and could not name teachers at her 12-year-old son's Toronto school. Also, according to Jamieson, a sample signature differed from the passport and immigration application signatures and the first name she variously spelled Suaad and Suad. She also could not tell what ATS, the courier company that employed her, stood for.

More curious is the woman's inability to name the lake the city of Toronto is located on or what TTC (Toronto Transit Commission, the city's public transit system) stood for even though she took it to work. This failure to name even basic facets of Toronto life after living in the city for ten years does raise flags but this ignorance isn't that uncommon in many of Toronto's insular immigrant communities. There are immigrants who have lived here for years who would be hard pressed to tell you what great lake the city resides on, that is if they can speak the language.

There are other oddities as well. She got her son's birthday wrong; she gave two separate years of her marriage, 1996 and 2006, and couldn't explain the contradiction; she was 6cm or 7cm shorter than what her driver's license states. And these are items Mr. Jamieson states in an affidavit.

The woman claiming to be Suaad Hagi Mohamud presented customer loyalty cards unique to Canada to support her claims that she is who she said she is but this was unconvicing to Mr. Jamieson.

"When an individual gives their passport to someone else to use, they often also provide a package of secondary identity documents," he says. "At the close of our interview, I addressed the person with whom I was speaking as Jihan, and advised her that I believed she was using her sister's passport," Jamieson says. "She smiled briefly, then looked away.

These bits of information were not reported when the Toronto Star first covered the story. The National Post takes the Toronto centric daily to task here. The Post's Jonathan Kay brings the Star's Christopher Hume back down to earth here.

Suaad Hagi Mohamud maintains that she was the one at the airport. But can she be trusted? She initially told the Toronto Star that she is a divorced single mother but now we learn that she is in fact married to a Somali man living in Kenyan who she wed in 2007. She also said that she went to Kenya to visit her mother but now she states that she went to Kenya to visit her husband as well. Oh, and Suaad's husband and mother each want a piece of that $2.6 million lawsuit she filed to the tune of $100,000 each.

Now we come to the part I wanted to get at in the first place. Assuming that Suaad Hagi Mohamud tried to smuggle an imposter into Canada by lending her passport, how common is this practice? Who else is doing it? How do they get their passports back? From what I can extrapolate from Mr. Jamieson's comments this behaviour may be more common than we know. What does it say about these immigrants who have taken a citizenship oath? What does this tell us about how they view Canada? Are we truly the land of trusting fools?

From what we now know let me reconstruct the "crime scene" so to speak. The real Suaad Hagi Mohamud went to Kenya and indeed visited her mother and her husband. She also met her siblings with one of whom she planned to sneak into Canada. This is the one who appeared at the airport and got caught. She was detained for five days by Kenyan officials and interviewed by Canadian officials. They concluded she was an imposter. With passport confiscated she was released to linger in Kenya for three months. The Toronto Star picked up the story and ran with it, eventually relinquishing control of it to ideology, agenda, and editorial bias, pointing an accusing finger at the big bad racist conservative government. Political pressure mounted to get a DNA test from the woman and to bring her back to Canada. This is when the real Suaad Hagi Mohamud appeared. Recall that she was in Kenya for three months. She wasn't in custody all that time. That's why the DNA test was 99.9% in the affirmative.

Seeing an easy and lucrative paycheck an opportunistic lawyer contacted her and took up her case. They filed a $2.6 million lawsuit against the government. However, I suspect, her lawyer was as ignorant of the finer details of her story as was everyone else, going by what he read in the Toronto Star. Now he is in the unanticipated role of playing spin doctor.

The above is all speculative. I don't know how this will play out or what actually happened in Kenya. It may very well be that Suaad Hagi Mohamud was mistaken for an imposter and her lawsuit justified. Her almost complete ignorance of Canada and the Canadian city she lived in for ten years is, sadly, too common a characteristic of many so called "new Canadians", an unsurprising outcome of multiculturalism and the insularity of ethnic enclaves. But it's fun to speculate and assume things, facts be damned. Anyone at the Toronto Star editorial board will tell you the same thing.

Now the Toronto Star has brought in photo experts to salvage what they can from a story that took an unwanted turn. According to them the woman in the photos presented to prove Suaad's identity are the same woman. So, we are now to believe photo experts far removed from the situation instead of the KLM employees who first suspected her, the Kenyan officials who concurred with the suspicion, and the Canadian officials who interviewed her and arrived at the same conclusions. We are to believe Suaad Hagi Mohamud and her husband, two people with incentives to lie, and photo experts living in Canada instead of the evidence provided in affidavits from a man who was actually there, on location, and met the woman, and talked to her.

Saturday, 26 September 2009

Another HIV-Positive African "Refugee", Another Woman Infected In Canada (and another dead).

These stories are becoming disconcertingly common in Canada. Not so common to raise alarm bells but common enough to make one wonder who is guarding our borders. An HIV+ African male and alleged "refugee" enters Canada and then spreads the virus here by infecting a Canadian citizen, sometimes more.

Their behaviour here, these alleged "refugees", raises red flags over their persecution claims. What kind of refugee behaves that way? Real refugees, those actually fleeing persecution and death, would be grateful to the host country and its citizens for providing asylum, being humble and law-abiding as an outward expression of thanks. At least that is what I assume. But this appears to be the exception nowadays where a sense of entitlement rules instead of gratitude.

Belligerence or criminality or a grandiose sense of entitlement manifesting itself in a display of varying degrees of disrespect for the host population are tell tale signs that these people are bogus. Sadly I feel that this characterizes too many of the so-called "refugees" that come to Canada. Many arrive as inland refugees and willingly lie to the government, and thus the people, and consciously commit an act of deceit to fraudulently obtain Canadian citizenship. What does it say about these people? What kind of citizens do you think they are going to be? Do they even deserve to be citizens?

What makes the linked story more heinous is that the "refugee" raped his girlfriend. Twice. Once by threatening her with a power drill to her head. And he knew he was HIV+. And so did the government but to its defense it did not know until after a test was administered, and not until after the man arrived in Canada and made a refugee claim. Should Canada be accepting anyone who is HIV+ at all? Why is Canada allowing the importation of an incurable disease that carries a death sentence and a hefty health care bill? This puts the health of its citizens at risk. It's absurd.

In case you're wondering the victim, a woman in her 50s, has tested positive for the virus. Her life has been ruined because Canada needs to fill a refugee intake quota and it appears anyone will do. But if the man wasn't allowed out on bail for a first degree murder charge (he killed a 20 year old woman and stuffed her body in a garbage in 2006) then Canada would have only destroyed one person's life due to a refugee system made a joke, inept, by politics and self interest.

Meanwhile in other news...

Sunday, 20 September 2009

You Cannot Fight Poverty If You Keep Importing It.

Some recent labour market data was released which should give cause for concern for Canada and its policy makers in Ottawa.

This first is a labour market survey. From it we learn:

Ontario saw a slight gain in the number of people working in August even though 23,000 full-time jobs disappeared, according to the latest Statistics Canada numbers.

The decline in full-time employment was offset by the addition of almost 36,000 part-time jobs.

However, the unemployment rate nudged up to 9.4 per cent from 9.3 per cent as the province's population and labour force both grew (the rate hit 9.6 per cent in June). Nationally, the unemployment rate rose to 8.7 per cent from 8.6 per cent.

The slight gain in the number of jobs is the second straight month of increases. "Despite these gains, employment in Ontario has declined by 207,000 (-3.1 per cent) since last October," Statistics Canada wrote Friday.

[...]

Some believe the period of economic contraction that began last October ended in June, and that the economy is poised to start growing again. However, economists caution that employment growth usually lags economic growth as companies try to put off hiring decisions.

It appears that a concerning amount of this job growth is driven by part-time work and self employment. As for the manufacturing sector some of these jobs may be gone for good leaving what to fill the void?

We also learned that more women than men are active in the labour force. This isn't good news because this shift was caused by the loss of good paying jobs that were performed mostly by men. It is not surprising that the Toronto Star missed this critical point. Instead it spun this news with a feminist slant using the often abused statistic that "the average full-time, full-year female worker still earns just 71.4 cents for every dollar earned by a man working similar hours". What is always ignored is that women are concentrated in lower paid work in greater numbers than men. Men working in those fields dominated by women are paid the same and vice versa. Pay equality, for the most part, exists but it is not ideologically advantageous to say this.

With that said, this shift illustrates that the labour market has changed (forever or for the time being?) to one characterized by lower paying jobs. It has little to do with labour market equality.

The OECD doesn't paint a prettier picture. It reports that unemployment in Canada will reach a post-war high "over the next year to almost 10 per cent, despite the federal government's stimulus package and global signs that the great recession seems to be ending".

"There are growing signs that the worst may be over and that a recovery may be in sight," the report noted. "But the short-term employment outlook is grim."

For Canada, employment peaked in October 2008, but has since dropped off by more than 486,000 full-time jobs, many of them in Ontario's hard-hit manufacturing sector.

[...]

The report warned, however, that if its forecasts about the current recession are accurate, job loss could go on to be worse than Canada's recession of the early 90s. It also noted that job loss has been particularly acute among young adults (aged 15-24), with an unemployment rate of 16.3 per cent, about double the adult rate.

"Even if the unemployment rate has already peaked, Canada's labour market typically takes a long time to recover from recessions," the report says. "The unemployment rate in the early 1990s recession peaked in early 1993, but did not drop below its prerecession level again until almost eight years later."

The OECD is predicting a long jobless recovery for Canada. Facing these economic forecasts it is best to dramatically cut immigration targets. Failing that Canada will be in a bad position to tackle poverty and will indeed be contributing to it. But don't expect any help from Canada's anti-poverty activists. They are as stupid and inept as Canada's environmentalists are and you cannot get any stupider than that. I say this because both activist groups refuse to address the core cause of their respective concerns which is mass immigration. It is mass immigration that is frustrating environmentalists efforts to protect Canada's arable land and green spaces. It is mass immigration that is contributing to increasing poverty numbers.

Here is a Toronto Star report on homelessness. The article informs us that:
The number of homeless families has been on the rise in Toronto since the 1990s, says Michael Shapcott, director of affordable housing and social innovation at the Wellesley Institute, adding the problem is partly due to cuts to affordable housing funding by both Ottawa and Queen's Park.

[..]

In April, there were 1,143 families in Toronto homeless shelters, a 4 per cent increase from a year earlier, Shapcott says, citing city figures. Studies from other Canadian cities show that for every family in a shelter there are three or four "hidden" families living in poverty and uncertainty.

Shapcott says 30,000 Toronto households face eviction on an annual basis. At the end of August there were 70,174 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in Toronto, the highest number yet, and only 538 new families were housed in August.

Note the solution to the problem would be for the provincial and federal government to increase funding to social housing. This wouldn't be necessary if Canada didn't import poverty on a yearly basis in the first place. Take any social housing community at random in the city of Toronto and read the directory of names and observe who lives there. If there is a shortage of social and affordable housing it is because Canada caused it by bringing in too many people, more than the country needs.

Taking landed immigrants, refugees, and temporary foreign workers as a whole Canada imports close to half a million people each year. Is now a good time to be introducing so many people into Canada's labour market? Is there really enough good paying jobs for these people? Do they even have the skills to perform them? How can we fight poverty if any gains made is negated by succeeding waves of immigrants?

You cannot protect Canada's poor without addressing mass immigration. If we are serious about eradicating poverty in Canada then we need to challenge Canada's immigrant intake numbers. You cannot cure an illness without treating its causes and right now in Ottawa there is no political will to lower immigration targets even in the current uncertain economic climate.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Ottawa To Appeal White South African's Asylum Claim.

Post title says it all.

According to the news report the appeal challenge by the government is a "rare" move in refugee cases. I don't know how rare it is but I can tell you one thing. If a federal riding or two can be swung by an expat white South African voting block Ottawa wouldn't be appealing the file at all. There isn't an expat Czech or Mexican voting block that can swing the vote in any federal electoral riding so it was safe to slap Czech Republic and Mexico with visa restrictions. Sri Lankan Tamils can swing the vote in as few as six electoral ridings compelling Ottawa to stall on labelling the LTTE as a terrorist organization even though the LTTE used child soldiers and pioneered the use of suicide bombs. The immigration system is more about politics than anything.

Which brings me to the white South African's asylum claim. I don't know how real his claims are and I doubt the individual who handled his case does either. This is the problem of allowing inland refugee claims. Those hearing the cases are estranged from the circumstances that bring individuals to Canada's borders to seek asylum and so can be easily lied to by people trying to capitalize on Canada's naiveté and ignorance (we call it compassion). If Canada vetted its refugees abroad we would be in a better position to weed out the liars but the problem here is that you will end up cutting out the lawyers and consultants and we can't have that now can we? Someone needs to make money from the refugee system and who's more deserving than lawyers and consultants?

I have heard commentators say crime does not discriminate in South Africa and that is true. African South Africans are more likely to be victims of crime than whites. But being white does single you out as being a "have" in a nation where the majority are "have nots" even though being white does not necessarily mean you are economically well off. Thus being white does make you a target of sorts but I wouldn't consider the attacks as being racially motivated. It's like asking a bank robber why he robs banks. It's where the money is. So, can this be considered persecution due to the colour of one's skin? And if the local police force and the South African government are incapable or unwilling (or both) of protecting Mr. Huntley and other white South Africans from targeted attacks does he (and they) have a legitimate claim?

Ironically, the negative press Mr. Huntley has received back in South Africa may actually strengthen his asylum claim since he has been labelled a fraud and an insult to South Africa. This may subject him to persecution by all South Africans, black and white, if he is forced to return.

But my gut feeling is that the decision to appeal is political. South Africa needs to save face and prove that the Rainbow Nation is working and Canada needs to convince itself that another multicultural social experiment isn’t failing.

It will be interesting to see if the appeal succeeds. But if Mr. Huntley is lying then kick him out.

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

Claiming Racial Persecution And Discrimination Canada Grants Asylum To White South African.

When I first read about this story I didn't know what to make of it. I came across this South African news service and found myself being persuaded by most of the comments which can be summed up thusly: Canadians are stupid. And they're right to say so. Canada's refugee system is ripe for abuse and the gullible nature of it has made us the laughing stock of the international community, not the envy. An apt quote was made by a Russian diplomat, quoted in Stewart Bell's recommended book Cold Terror, that Canada is the land of trusting fools. No truer words have ever been spoken describing the national psyche. What we call compassion others accurately see as foolishness, some with the intent of exploiting it. Couple this with a pathetic record of enforcing deportation orders and an endless appeals process Canada is an inviting place for every con man and their uncle to make a run for the border. After all, everyone in the world knows if you're going to make an asylum claim Canada is the place to do it.

So I thought this would be another example illustrating the stupidity and naiveté of the Immigration and Refugee Board and why we need competent, educated individuals to staff it, not political appointees and hacks. But then I did a little more reading and thought why not? Many, many, people have used race to get into the country as a refugee. Why not whites?

I think what many people have trouble getting their heads around is that maybe racism isn't inherently a white trait. That perhaps racism transcends race and that whites can be victims of it as well. Indeed in Canada we do exercise a form of polite racism against the host white majority population only we call it "equal opportunity employment" or "diversifying the workforce", fancy ways of saying working class whites, especially white males, need not apply.

The comments I have been reading from South Africans regarding the asylum claim is that discrimination and persecution against the white minority in the "Rainbow Nation" exists and it doesn't exist. I don't live there, I have no intention of living there or of even visiting the place, so I don't know what to make of the contradictory claims. What is clear is that the asylum ruling has set a precedent for white South Africans to make refugee claims in Canada based on race. African South Africans have made asylum claims in Canada during the apartheid years. Are whites going to take a turn at a kick at the can? Has South Africa become that hostile to them? I don't know.

If the allegations of persecution are true then South Africa's whites are not alone. Zimbabweans have received a not too friendly welcome from South Africans but this has more to do with economics than race.