Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Looks Like The Party's Over As Acceptance Rates For Sri Lankan Refugee Claims Plummets.

And it's about f**king time! The laughably high acceptance rate Canada lavished on Sri Lankan asylum claims has been an embarrassment to this country and a knock at the credibility of the Immigration and Refugee Board. It really was a con game and we Canadians were being played for saps. From the Vancouver Sun:

For each month from January 2009 to July 2010, the percentage of accepted refugee claims from Sri Lanka was typically greater than 80 or 90 per cent, the data show.

But in August, the month the Tamils arrived aboard the MV Sun Sea — sparking a heated debate about Canada's refugee system and vows by the Harper government to crack down on human smuggling — the percentage of accepted claims dropped to 75 per cent. It then plunged to 47 per cent in September.

Since it takes an average of 22 months for a refugee claim to be heard, none of the cases decided in September were connected to the migrants aboard the MV Sun Sea.

So it looks like Sri Lanka's Tamils are going to have to get in line and apply to immigrate to Canada just like everybody else instead of shamelessly scamming a humanitarian system.

If this is not an anomaly, as the Canadian Tamil Congress hopes it is, and is indicative of an ongoing trend that will witness further drops in acceptance rates then this will substantially hinder Sri Lankan immigration to Canada since Sri Lankans, especially the Tamils, have been primarily dependent on Canada's asylum system to immigrate here. Were it not for the most gullible and generous asylum system in the world, along with its partner in crime the family reunification act, there wouldn't be much of a Sri Lankan Tamil presence in Canada speak of let alone a Sri Lankan one.

I wouldn't be angered by this if I genuinely felt they were real refugees but my researching the matter tells me otherwise. I often wondered why Canada was the target of so many asylum claims from Sri Lanka yet witnessed very little from places like Darfur or Rwanda. The simple explanation is that real refugees do not have the relative safety to wait around at a specified spot in their home country for their government issued passport to arrive in the mail. Nor do they have the financial means to buy a plane ticket, or a spot on a smuggler's boat, to travel half way around the world to make an asylum claim, passing through safe third countries en route.

Real refugees are constantly on the move. That's why they are called displaced persons. The only time they are at a fixed address for a determinant amount of time is when they make it to a refugee camp. Yet, thanks to the Singh decision, these are the one's we ignore to favour the gate crashers. That's the whole irony of Canada's asylum system. By allegedly being made compassionate it is least compassionate to those in need of real sanctuary.

If one good thing can be said about the abuse of Canada's asylum system by Sri Lankans it is this: they have demonstrated to us the fiasco that is our refugee system and the need for the government to return to a process by which claims are vetted abroad. Inland claims should be turned away if they arrived by way of a safe third country. Failing that they should be detained until their status is determined and not released before that which is what we do now. Inland claims should be discouraged but since this is how lawyers and refugee advocacy groups get paid expect resistance by them at the cost of those who need our help the most.

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

A Book To Add To Your 'To Read' List.

Broadcaster Lowell Green has written a book titled Mayday. Mayday: Curb immigration. Stop multiculturalism or it's the end of the Canada we know. You can read more about it here.

The publication of this book in a line of books critical of Canada's immigration system is encouraging. Along with the official launch of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform I hope a momentum is brewing to put pressure on the government to bring some sanity to, what I feel is, an unpopular, destructive, and unsustainable immigration system.

Mocking Diversity: Canada Accepts Too Many Immigrants From Too Few Source Countries.

I argue that not only does Canada accept too many immigrants for its own good, it is importing them from too few source countries. According to this report it appears a growing number of Canadians agree.

Forget changing whether we take more family immigrants or skilled workers, a new poll shows Canadians want to shake up the selection of countries from which we select immigrants.

A Leger Marking poll of 1,503 Canadians found that 40% of Canadians say the government should limit immigrants from certain countries in order to change the mix of immigrants coming to Canada.


In 2009, close to one-third of all new immigrants to Canada came from just three countries - China (29,049), Phillipines (27,277) and India (26,122).

When we add in the rest of the Asian nations approximately half of all immigrants to Canada, if not more, come from one region of the world. Simply stated Canada is importing too many Asian immigrants.

In Toronto immigration means Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and then everyone else. I'm sure it is the same across the nation. Though Toronto's motto is the Orwellian sounding "Diversity is our strength" the immigrants Toronto mostly receives mocks that motto because they are anything but diverse since three nations make up the lion's share of immigrant producing countries.

Now, this wouldn't be a bad thing if Canada was an Asian nation itself but it is not (at least not yet). The rapid introduction of a people into a host society that is dissimilar to it causes integration problems and societal stresses in the form of racism, distrust, prejudice, a lost sense of community and belonging, among others. The end effect is colonialism, not nation building.

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Thou Shalt Not Offend Immigrant Vote Banks: Immigration Levels To Remain Steady During Uncertain Economic Times.

If anyone needs convincing that Canada's federal MPs care more about their jobs than those of the people they allegedly represent than look no further than the latest announcement concerning immigration levels. Barely crawling out of a deep recessionary period that created an unemployment level above 8% (unofficially it is probably above 10%); coupled with an OECD report that projects an unimpressive rate of growth for Canada averaging at 1.6% until 2017; these amid predictions of a jobless recovery; Jason Kenney, minister responsible for immigration, has the nerve to tell us that the governemt intends to keep immigration levels steady between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents next year.

If that isn't bad enough he also announced that the government intends to decrease the number of economic class immigrants by 5,000 while increasing the number of spouses and children and refugees. In other words they want fewer skilled immigrants to settle in the country while increasing the number of unskilled immigrants because "Canada's post-recession economy demands a high level of legal immigration to keep our workforce strong”. Does that make sense to you? Can anyone with a rational mind wrap their brian around that and explain how lowering skilled immigration and raising unskilled immigration will "keep the workforce strong"?

Whether Jason Kenney is conscious of it or not he appears to have given a veiled pessimistic view of Canada's economy in the years to come. Why would you want immigrants with high expectations over those whose expectations are lower in comparison if the jobs Canada will be churning out are low paying, low skilled, dead end occupations? He seems to be aware of this and that's why he wants fewer skilled immigrants to come to Canada.

Ultimately this is an ill-advised decision made to save political careers. The Conservatives do not want to jeopardize their bid for a majority in the next election by potentially offending immigrant and ethnic vote banks in Canada's voter rich urban centers. They know that were they to do the right thing and reduce immigration levels at this time their political opponents will jump on them and denounce them as anti-immigrant in the hopes that such baseless accusations will score them political points with ethnic urban voting blocs. Sadly none of them seem to appreciate the possibility that immigrants want less immigration too.

What other reason could it be? We are told that we need to maintain a mass immigration regime to "keep the workforce strong" as the economy crawls along at the lightning speed of 1.6% growth a year. When we were in the midst of the recession we were told we needed to maintain a mass immigration regime to (get this) "prepare for the recovery". When the economy was healthy and booming we not only needed to maintain a mass immigration regime, we were told, to keep pace but we needed more immigration.

So the question is what economic conditions will necessitate less immigration? The Trudeau Liberals thought the recession of the early 1980s was enough to reduce immigration targets and that's what they did. Now it seems we need a depression and then, maybe.