Thursday, 29 December 2011

Contribution Or Competition, Integration Or Conquest: It's The Beginning Of The End For New-Canada™ (and Canada) As We Know It.

I don't know if this is their idea of contributing to Canada and integrating into Canadian society but it seems like competition and conquest to me.

I don't see how this is of any benefit to us Canadians.  How can it be?  We are expected to make way, indeed forcibly pushed aside as the article implies, for the new-Canada which means surrendering jobs and forgoing careers to satisfy the career aspirations of belligerent "new Canadians" who are exploiting immigrant driven demographic changes to satiate their hunger for economic power and political influence.  And all at the expense of social stability.

Let's not kid ourselves.  This is about power and conquest.  It is not about integrating into the whole and being a neighbour in the neighbourhood.  It is about being a neighbour and running the neighbourhood by being the neighbourhood.

The rapid demographic shift immigration brought to Peel Region in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is alarming and in my view is an attack on Canadians.  According to the article:

In the 1996 census, Peel’s visible minority population was about 265,000. By 2006 it had climbed to 577,000, half of the region’s population. Projected figures for 2011 put it at 60 per cent, with the biggest change in Brampton, where the number of visible minority residents jumped from 79,950 to 246,000 in 10 years. Projections for this year suggest Brampton’s residents are 67 per cent visible-minority.

Incredible!  And the fruits it is apparently producing is social disharmony, a culture war against Canadians living in the region, race based power struggles, and more social disharmony to come.  You see, the three main racial groups in Peel Region are whites, blacks, and south Asian (primarily Sikh Punjabis).  If south Asians are complaining that there are too many whites in positions of civic power and influence (because they want a piece of the action you see) then what is stopping blacks from protesting that there are too many south Asians in the same positions?

If the government did not insist on attacking its citizens with socially destabilizing immigration policies Peel Region would not be facing this problem.  And it is a problem.  Why?  Because race matters!  You can sugar coat it in all you want with the language of diversity and multiculturalism but what we have brewing in Peel Region is a race based power struggle.  If all the immigrants to Peel Region reflected the host culture and society then there would not be a problem as they would have integrated and disappeared into the host culture seamlessly.  But that is not what happened since the vast majority of immigrants settling into Peel Region could not have been any more different than the host society.  And now that they have overrun the place they want a new sheriff in town because they say so!  The threats could not be any more clearer on this:

“Usually, every institution is designed to resist change. Status quo is the norm,” says Naveed Chaudhry, director of the Peel Multicultural Council, a non-profit group that receives United Way and government funding.
From the top down, he says, public bodies have to accept “the new realities.”
“You will be seeing more complaints if the change doesn’t happen,” he predicts. “Institutions can resist change, but they cannot stop it.”

The effrontery on display is offensive but should be taken as a warning for the nation as a whole of the clear and present danger that is the current immigration system.  Looking at Peel Region is like gazing into a crystal ball and seeing what a future Canada will look like, and function like, when its Euro-American based host culture is reduced to minority status with no clear racial group to unify the nation.

It will be socially destabilized as race-based, ethnic politics comes to define Canadian society and the Canadian political scene even more so.

Ottawa will find itself paralysed to enacting an effective public policy in an increasingly ungovernable nation without fear of offending some identity group.

The same can be said of its foreign policy as years of multicultural dogma and complacent cultural accommodations has redefined the Canadian into being an empty shell of a human; as nothing more than someone who posses some vague "shared values" that no one can agree on, has a job, and regularly shops in a mall; that a Canadian is just someone who resides in Canada while one's cultural and and emotional attachments reside somewhere else.  With a nation full of these people it will be difficult to have an effective foreign policy without giving consideration to the sensibilities of some voting bloc.

The nation will fracture as separatist factions arise across regions of the country and find a voice in Ottawa through special interest parties.  I say this because world events and history have made clear that people like to govern themselves and what unites a people is primarily language, race, religion, ethnicity, as well as a shared history.  Most immigrants to Canada have little to none of this in common with the host society and will only divide the nation as they increase in number.  As a consequence certain regions  will become defined by their ethnicity/race/religion and will have little in common with each other.  An Asian dominated B.C. will have little in common with with a south Asian dominated Ontario which will have little in common with a native dominated Saskatchewan and Territories which will have nothing in common with French speaking Quebec.  If language is enough to compel Quebec to secede imagine the potency when you through race and religion into the mix.

To save Canada it will have to become increasingly totalitarian.  (Sadly, I think Canadians will be comfortable with this being one of the most politically passive people in the world, we are a tyrants wet dream.)  It already is so in some respect and immigration and multiculturalism is to thank for it.  Under the guise of  "hate-crime" laws drafted to "protect" Canada's "just society" our freedom of speech has been curtailed for this very purpose.  I believe we will have even more freedoms restricted and regulated for the sake of the survival of the future new-Canada.   

The losers are us Canadians and the future generations of Canadians whose country we gave away.

The winners are foreign nations (like India and China) who can influence Canada's domestic affairs to suit their interests through their Canadian colonies Ottawa so stupidly imported, nurtured, and grew.

Also, the winners are the parasites in the grievance industry like Barbara Hall.  This kind of conflict justifies her job - her existence - and ensures she gets a steady pay check care of the tax payer.  She thrives on this,       indeed encourages it, which is why she and her ilk love mass immigration so much.  Without the easily foreseeable conflicts the mass importation of disparate peoples is bringing to the new-Canada Barbara Hall would not have much of a post political career to speak of right now.

For Barbara Hall it's about self-preservation and self-interest and that's what this is all about.  Immigrants don't come to Canada to "contribute" to the country, they come to enrich themselves from Canada's bounty.  It's pure selfishness and any social benefits that spring forth from this selfishness is just an unintended consequence.  When gathered under the banner of "community" this concentrated self-interest makes demands on the host society with the goal of extracting economic and political power unto itself with the hopes that this surrendered power will trickle down to the individual and advance his or her ambitions (which is what is clearly at work in the linked article).  Repeat this many times across the nation to reflect each "community" and you have yourself an unified, dissatisfied, ungovernable body politic.

I may be going a little overboard here but I don't feel I'm too far off the mark.  An internally conflicted nation is a possible outcome out of many for the new-Canada and one that should be considered as we sleepwalk into the future.  And if the actions of immigrant groups in Peel Region are any indication of which direction we are headed it appears rough waters await HMS Canada that will end up capsizing the ship.

They say immigration built the country.  I say immigration is going to destroy it.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

A Merry Christmas To All And A Toast To Christianity: The Most Truly Canadian Religion Of Them All.

So some multicult joker contributed a piece to the Toronto Star that suggests Christmas should surrender the spotlight in the Canadian cultural psyche to give equal stage time to other "truly Canadian" cultural celebrations.  It's like asking Christmas to give up its starring role and become just another player in an ensemble multicultural cast.  And what are these other "truly Canadian" festivals you ask?  Why, Diwali, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, Chinese New Year, and Kushali of course along with the many other unspecified beautiful celebrations that are somehow "truly Canadian."

While the piece should be yet another reminder to Canadians that the current immigration system and multiculturalism are, characteristically, about cultural conquest and colonialism I don't know where he gets off calling non-Christian religions "truly Canadian" because to me, for the most part, these can't be considered Canadian at all.

For starters Diwali is a Hindu festival that the vast majority of Canadians have never heard of and who couldn't tell you at what time of the year it is celebrated even though we should since it is a "truly Canadian" celebration, or so we're told.  But how can it be when Hinduism fails to meet the basic criteria of what makes one a Canadian.  If a Canadian is one who accepts a set of cherished values then one cannot be a Hindu and call him or herself a Canadian at the same time because one of those values is the acceptance that all men and women are equal irrespective of race, gender, and station in life.  But Hinduism doesn't believe in that at all.  Hindus believe in the natural, divinely sanctioned inequality of men and women as expressed in the caste system.  So how can Diwali be "truly Canadian" when a core belief of Hinduism is completely unCanadian?

Eid is an Islamic observance and Islam never fails to show us that it is a bigoted, sexist, supremacist religion that seeks dominance through coercion, subjugation, and intimidation.  It doesn't even believe in the principals of multiculturalism or democracy.  It only does so when Islam is a minority culture but once it constitutes the majority it becomes "our house, our rules" and all minor religions be warned.  So how can Eid be considered "truly Canadian" when multiculturalism and democracy are two cherished Canadian values?

Hanukkah is a relatively minor Jewish holiday that has now become over gloried.  It gained popular observance in the late 19th century by Jews in the North American diaspora as a way to shield themselves from the assimilating influences of Christmas by providing them with a Jewish alternative and Hanukkah conveniently coincided with Christmas.  It was a way to protect them from integrating into the whole of society and allow them to remain separate in their unique Jewishness.  Hanukkah is for Jews only and us gentiles are not exactly invited to participate.  So, how does that gel with basic Canadian values of inclusion and equality?

Kwanzaa is a fake holiday started by an American black supremacist and segregationist.  Enough said!

Canadians don't celebrate Chinese New Year.  The Chinese celebrate Chinese New Year.  That's why it's called Chinese New Year and not Canadian New Year.

As for Kushali the only thing a Google search tells me is that this clown probably spelt it wrong (I think it is spelt Khushali) which suggests to me even he doesn't know what it is.  But doesn't that say it all?  I don't think this guy knows exactly what he is talking about because he doesn't know anything about those "truly Canadian" holidays (Kwanzaa a truly Canadian holiday?  Is he serious?!).  Hell, Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur are more apt choices than Hanukkah but he chose Hanukkah because it occurs at the same time as Christmas and this gets to the core of his argument; that Christmas is one celebration among equals and that it doesn't deserve to be considered truly Canadian over others.  To hell with that!     

This guy is talking out of his ass if he thinks these ethnic, niche holidays are as Canadian as Christmas.  If we were to rate all of these holidays on a "truly Canadian" scale then none can get any more Canadian than Christmas, not even close.

The fact that Christmas is now heavily secularized means one need not be religious to participate attesting to its inclusive character.

But still, one cannot estrange Christmas from Christianity and of all religions Christianity is the most Canadian of them all.  It is a religion of invitation unlike Judaism which espouses separateness, difference, and uniqueness largely through bloodline.  It is a religion of persuasion through discussion and reason, respecting the free will of man unlike Islam which is a religion of coercion and congest by the Qur'an or the sword.  Christianity is a religion the teaches one to love thy neighbour as thyself and that we are all equals; all being children of a shared God unlike Hinduism which teaches that some cows are more equal than others.  Out of all world religions you can't get any more Canadian than Christianity and thanks be to that religion for it is what helped make this country so great.

So Merry Christmas to all and a toast to Christianity: that most truly, truly, truly Canadian religion.

Saturday, 17 December 2011

Dear Natasha Burge

You go girl!

 And just when I had lost hope for the rising generation of Canadian youth. I was left with the impression that they were all drunk on the mutlicult kool-aid forced fed to them by Canada's politicized, left leaning indoctrination camps we call the public education system.

 But Canada's youth should be concerned and they should be fighting back because culturally they have everything to lose in the new Canada™. It's their future after all and how can they sit by idly as their country disappears from them right before their eyes.

 The words Natasha choose to express herself are crass but the sentiment is definitely shared by many, many Canadians across the nation. I just wonder if she would have still been suspended by her cowardly school administrators had she used a civil tongue in her facebook protest.

 In any case she is right and a suspension will not change that. Immigrants choose to come to Canada of their own free will and accord. They were not forced into it yet somehow they feel entitled to make demands of the host society and that's has to stop. It's high time we start making demands of them.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

The Corruption, The Incompetence.

It's been a while since I updated my blog so I will do so with two stories that I think nicely illustrate how dysfunctional Canada's immigration system truly is.

The first one comes out of Prince Edward Island. The province's immigration program has invited scrutiny by the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency over allegations of fraud and bribery. According to the allegations relatives of Premier Robert Ghiz, along with cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and several MLAs, benefited financially from the immigrant investor program that allowed primarily Chinese nationals to buy their way into Canada. If true this is a scandal reminiscent of project sidewinder where Chinese Triad gangsters, businessmen, and operatives of the Chinese government gained entry into Canada through bribery and fraud.

This isn't the first time a scandal plagued immigration system has visited the Maritimes. Nova Scotia's failed immigration nominee program provides us with another example where immigrants were fleeced by the Nova Scotia government and private business. The program allowed foreign nationals to pay $130,000 each for a six-month internship that would allow them to immigrate to Nova Scotia. They got paid a minimum salary of $20,000, with companies getting up to $80,000 to cover costs associated with being a mentor. About $30,000 went to cover program fees.

The program was a disaster. Not only were the jobs not there for half of them but the jobs being provided were considered below the skill sets of the immigrants. And all the while being paid less than what a Canadian would be paid to do the same job. It was a transfer of public money to private enterprise while immigrants drove down the incomes of the local population through wage competition. Both immigrants and Nova Scotians were getting fleeced. The immigrants who took part in the program complained and are now going to get refunded their money albeit partially since the government hasn't committed to a total refund. The only one who came out laughing in the end was Nova Scotia's private sector who took advantage of the immigration system for profit.

In the second story we learn that over half of all the immigration judges at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) are not qualified to do the job.
That’s because more than half of them failed to meet new criteria that will be a requirement of the role after it undergoes legislative changes.

The immigration system in Canada is currently in the process of being amended by Bill C-11.

The bill, which will be introduced next June, will replace the position of board members, or refugee judge, with a new title, but the job will remain more or less the same.


Of the 63 Immigration and Refugee Board judges currently hearing refugee claimant's files, 32 don't meet criteria for the same job under Bill C-11.

Twenty-four of the applicants were eliminated after multiple choice and written exams. Twelve more withdrew their application or failed to submit the exam. One was screened out and seven more eliminated after interviews.

That leaves the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) with 10 candidates who had passed the interview and nine who were waiting for an interview to be scheduled, as of Nov. 4, the most up to date information available.

These jokers were acting as guardians at the gate and now armed with this insight into their ineptitude who knows how many criminals, terrorists, spies, and shyster bogus refugees they allowed into Canada because of their incompetency. But considering the history of the IRB this news comes as no surprise. Picked largely from refugee advocacy groups and well connected individuals looking to land a highly paid sinecure public sector job these immigration judges at the IRB have turned Canada's asylum system into an international joke. Being mostly ignorant and agenda driven and lazy these people didn't seem to care who they allowed in. It was the easiest six figure salary they ever made and at the end of the day that's all that really mattered.

So there you have it. Crooks, cronies, mooks and morons have been playing an influential role in the shaping of Canada's immigration system and its outcomes. And it explains a lot doesn't it? Walking the streets of Toronto alone and meeting the world's imported "best and brightest" should leave one thinking that we Canadians are being cheated in immigration's version of the subprime mortgage scandal where quantity not quality ruled the day; where a group of parasitic individuals reap rich returns on the tacit understanding that all toxic assets will be bought up by the taxpayer freeing them to act in a reckless fashion and estranged from its consequences. Meanwhile it is the rest of us who have to put up with their shit and frankly I'm getting tired of it.

Monday, 14 November 2011

Should Domestic Violence Be Grounds For A Refugee Claim?

I don't think so and it's good to see many of those commenting on the Toronto Star article agree including a woman who is actually from St. Vincent.

Domestic violence is not covered by the U.N. Convention Relating To The Status Of Refugees because it is not "persecution" per se but misandrist women and the immigration industry - with eyes blinded by dollar signs - were adamant to make Canada recognize it as so. So in 1993 Canada decided to make domestic violence grounds for an asylum claim, the first country in the world to do so, because our "compassion" makes us stupid like that and we're too intellectually lazy to think things through.

Think about it. There's over 7 billion people on the planet right now. About half are women. Of those women how many do you think are victims of domestic violence? The number must be in the hundreds of millions. Technically, and legally, if they all made as rush for Canada they can file an asylum claim. And we don't have the resources to process them all. And the opportunities for abusing the system with bogus refugee claims based on domestic violence are obvious.

Canada's refugee determination system is a mess because we have allowed it to get that way by going way beyond the scope of the the UN Convention. This broadening of criteria and allowing issues like gender discrimination, domestic violence, the persecution of homosexuals, amongst others, to be grounds for an asylum claim opened the floodgates causing Canada to lose control of her borders.

Life can be ugly. That's just how it is. Domestic violence happens and it's never going to go away. The best way to address it is not by allowing victims of domestic violence immigrate to Canada but to change the attitudes - and the law - of the societies that harbours it. Whereas the former only benefits the few, the latter will benefit the many.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

The Vast Majority Of Mexico Is Safer Than Toronto!? Say Whaaaaat!!!???

Who knew? But I guess if you lived there like these ex-pat Canadians do then you'd know that.

Mexico was, at one time, Canada's top source country for refugee claims. Using 2010 figures it has now fallen to fourth place behind Hungary, China and Colombia, and just ahead of the Island Of Bullshitters and Their Bullshit Asylum Claims.

The fall was because the government slapped Mexico with visa restrictions to deal with what it regarded were a steady steam of bogus asylum claims coming out of the country, some claims being Mexican newly-weds honeymooning in Canada on our dime. Only 10% of asylum claims made by Mexican nationals are ever accepted. The rest are either rejected or abandoned.

Since much of the news out of Mexico concerns itself with the violence of the country's drug wars to hear someone say that Mexico is, for the most part, about as safe as Toronto may come as a shock. But to those who actually live there they seem quite happy to set the record straight for you.

This cuts to the heart of the problem of allowing inland refugee claims and the establishment of a legal apparatus to entertain them. Those hearing asylum claims and deciding on their validity here in Canada are too far removed from the countries producing the asylum claims to make a qualified decision since they have little context to work with. They know so little about those nations and may even be hard pressed to find them on a map. Operating in a bubble of near ignorance their opinion of a foreign country may be solely shaped by what they read in the news. This systemic ignorance is a major reason why Canada's asylum system is rife with abuse.

This is why the bulk of Canada's refugee claims should be assessed abroad by people possessed of a knowledge of the country they are working in and an understanding of its people and culture. Right now Immigration and Refugee Board judges are, for the most part, appointees for which the only qualification you need is to be well acquainted with the right people. If I'm not mistaken Queen Mila Mulroney, wife to King Brian the Buffoon, once appointed her hairdresser to the IRB. How's that for quality? One former IRB judge let his politics decide his cases for him. Essentially, Canada's refugee system and the IRB are inefficient mechanisms to deal with asylum claims. But when sinecure, six figure salary civil service jobs are at stake don't expect any change to happen any time soon.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

It Looks Like We Didn't Need immigrants To Fund The CPP Afterall.

One of the government's selling points to a weary Canadian public for upping immigration intake numbers beyond reason is that immigrants are needed to fund the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP). It is argued that retiring "baby boomers" will put a lot of stress on the CPP's resources testing its solvency. Therefore we need to import many immigrants in increasing numbers to work and provide the taxes needed to keep the CPP afloat.

It turns out the CPP is doing fine. So good in fact that there will be enough money in the fund to pay out CPP benefits for at least the next 75 years! This news should be taken along with a recent poll that found close to 70% of people polled planned to keep working in some fashion post-retirement.

It appears the argument suggesting that without immigration the CPP will become underfunded is just a scare tactic to compel Canadians to embrace an immigration system they otherwise have grave issues with and works against their interests.

We know that any positive effects mass immigration has on an ageing Canadian society are negligible at best; we know that mass immigration does not create jobs for Canadians; we know that mass immigration inadequately addresses skills shortages; we know that immigrants eat up more taxes than they produce as a group; and now we know that immigrants are not needed to support the CPP.

So can some please tell me exactly why we need to import record numbers of immigrants into Canada each and every year? Seriously! If I am supposed to surrender my country to succeeding waves of de facto colonizers then at least give me a legitimate reason why I should embrace this unwanted fate.

Sunday, 23 October 2011

TFWs: Doing Work Canadians Want To Do.

Know how we Canadians are incessantly told that immigrants do jobs Canadians don't want to do [at that pay mind you but they always stop the sentence short and I should add they are jobs immigrants don't want to do either (nor their Canadian born children) but will do until their permanent residency is assured)? Well, it turns out immigrants are doing jobs Canadians want to do after all.

I should be more accurate. They are temporary foreign workers (TFWs) to be precise, not immigrants per se, but as anyone in the immigration field will tell you there is noting more permanent than a temporary foreign worker.

I've been reading the comments to the article and it appears the story is a little more complicated than the reporter in the Edmonton Sun makes it out to be. I recommend you read the comments as well and if you do see if you can spot the company shill providing spin to the issue.

What appears clear to me is that this is yet another example of the business community using the immigration system to bust unions and drive down incomes, and consequently living standards, of Canadians.

One of the comments argues that the labour shortage in places like the Alberta tar sands is manufactured by purposely offering low wages and no benefits to drive away any domestic interest so that companies will have little option but to import TFWs. I think this is right on the mark. At the right pay coupled with other incentives you can easily attract the labour you desire but there seems to be no interest in doing this. There is also the option to train and retain employees but there is no interest in doing this either which appears to be especially true with the construction industry. If there is a labour shortage in this country Canadian businesses share some of the blame.

The issues here are thus. One is the use of foreigners - Filipinos and Portuguese in this case - to attack the living standards of Canadians by driving down incomes and eliminating benefits. This redistributes wealth upwards and into concentrated hands which in turn exacerbates the growing income divide. This should be a concern because concentrated wealth is harmful to the health of the economy. The second issue is private companies - private citizens - selecting who gets to immigrate to Canada. Immigration is largely a federal issue because it affects Canadian sovereignty and I don't believe unaccountable, private citizens should decide who gets to settle here. The third issue is the misnamed temporary foreign worker. There is no such thing as a temporary foreign worker since too many of them never leave even after their visa expires which leads to the last issue. This has to do with the business practice of externalizing costs which means dumping the cost of doing business onto someone else. In this case, private companies offer unattractive pay packages to discourage domestic interest so that they can pursue the cheaper imported foreigner option. They can recapture the costs of importing them by paying them less (which means less taxes being sent to Ottawa than a Canadian worker would send), offering little to no benefits, and then disposing of them once they have maximized their investment in them. The business then dumps the cost of the TFW onto the Canadian taxpayer because now in Canada the TFW does not always leave the country on his or her own volition once their visa expires. Along with the cost to the government of having to track them down to deport them the now illegal immigrant needs to meet his or her basic necessities which will necessitate a source of income of sorts. These are costs to Canadians in some way or another. The now illegal may make a refugee claim to extend his or her stay which means even more costs to Canadians. To the business community TFWs means profits. To the rest of us TFWs just aren't worth it.

When foreign workers were invading Canadian territory and negatively affecting the incomes of Canadian citizens, and jeopardizing their financial well being, the government did something about it to protect the interests of the citizens who elected it. It installed a head tax. Now it chaperones foreign workers into the Canadian labour market with no regard to how this affects Canadian incomes and Canadian society.

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Sweden Hates Itself, Wants To Commit Suicide.

Looks to Canada for ideas on to end it all.

As usual the real story is in the comments.

Saturday, 15 October 2011

Pick One: Multiculturalism Or Preserving Canadian History Because You Cannot Have Both.

Looks like Muslims are causing communal tension again this time with the residents of Markham, Ontario. The issue is over the approved construction of a 28,000-sq. ft. Mosque to be built on Markham's 16th avenue just east of St. Brother Andre Catholic School.

Opponents charge the Mosque will cause disruptive traffic congestion along with potential parking and traffic overflow issues. But the main concern, it appears, is the the Mosque will disrupt the historic atmosphere of Markham's town core. This is a real concern after all since, according to the report, Markham town council rejected the construction of a Taoist temple for that reason ruling it "out of character with the community" as if a 28,000-sq. ft. Mosque isn't. So as it is with Christianity it's Taoism out, Mohammed in.

Responding to the rejection of the design of the Taoist temple one of the architects stated that the project was "oriented to Steeles Avenue" and that "Steeles Avenue is a neighbourhood in transition" implying concerns over aesthetic compatibility with Markham's historic town core setting are nonsense. So here lies the conflict: you have two group - Taoists and Muslims - who want to effect cultural change on an apparent unreceptive townspeople who find value in preserving the historic character of the neighbourhood in which they live. Who's side should prevail?

It's not like the Taoists and Muslims do not have options. Facing negative public reaction they could do the neighbourly thing and move their projects elsewhere in town. This will be an act of mutual accommodation the residents of Markham may find endearing and consequently build good interfaith and cross-cultural relations. Of course this is not what happened.

When it comes to issues like this I have come to expect the introduced faiths and cultures to Canadian society to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to build good relations with their Canadian neighbours. Prompted with a multiculti fuelled raging sense of entitlement the Taoists expect to build where they want to irrespective of the concerns of their neighbours and the hopes of the town council that they would build elsewhere. As for Muslims, with Allah on their side and doing His work they just do not give a damn as long as they get what they want even in the face of a petition wanting them to build elsewhere. We Canadians should be familiar with this by now: we accommodate them, they do not accommodate us.

The Taoists refuse to budge on point of principal. "If we are out of sight, we are out of mind," stated a spokesperson in the report which seems to suggest they want to shove their culture in as many faces as possible even if we are all content with ourselves by ignoring it.

For the Muslims I think the issue is the same but one better: it is also about conquest. The Mosque is not being built in any part of Markham. It is being built in it's historic town core. This is symbolic for several reasons.

One is it is a stamp of Islamic permanence by co-opting an historic setting. This suggests that Islam is now apart of local history ignoring the fact Islam had nothing to do with the establishment and development of the town itself. But this does not really matter in the long-term. What really matters now is that Islam can affect any future cultural direction the town makes which we can reasonably suppose will be done out of self interest.

This leads to the second reason: the appropriation of an historic setting implies that Markham's future, or at least a part of it, belongs to Islam; that pre-Islamic Markham is a thing of the past to be forgotten and possibly destroyed. The disconnect between a newly built Mosque designed to bring attention to itself and its pre-Islamic setting is making that statement. I do not think the choice to design the Mosque to reference the Taj Mahal in India is purely for aesthetic reasons. The Taj Mahal is one of Islam's grandest symbols of Islamic permanence in a region where Islam didn't exist before. It also harkens to the days of Muslim conquest in south Asia.

For any of this to be possible Markham's residents must allow the surrender and slow death of any semblance to the town's history. Muslims and Taosits (amongst others) cannot preserve their culture and history on Canadian soil alongside Canadian culture and history. Someone has to give and time and time again it is us Canadians doing the accommodating. This is at great cost to us because a people estranged from their history have no sense of self in the present and is lost to the future.

One last thing. The rejection of the Taoist temple was criticized as a case of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) in the linked article above by a proponent and I think this generally describes Canadian attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism and why it is mistakenly perceived as being a "success" in this country as nations the world over are rejecting it. Canadians are typically warmer to mass immigration and multiculturalism so long as they do not have to see it. If they have places to go to escape it then they do it. That is why in Toronto there are white majority neighbourhoods almost free of any evidence of immigration and multiculturalism. And that is how the white residents in these neighbourhoods like it. They won't admit to it but actions speak louder than words and where they choose to live and what neighbours they want speaks volumes about their real preferences.

The residents of Markham do not have problems with Taoists and Muslims so long as they can be moved to the corner and out of the way where they can easily be ignored. This is so that they can go on for one more day pretending that the colonization of their town and country is not happening but this solution to their discomfort is superficial. The core of the problem is with our immigration system and the colonizing effect it is having on the country. If they truly cherish Markham's historic town core then they need to address this fact or else lose it forever.

If you are interested in signing the petition here it is again.

Monday, 10 October 2011

If Landlords Can Advertise For Muslim Only Tenants...

...does that mean, if principles are to be applied equally, that Canada can choose to accept only non-Muslim citizens?

Isn't it the same thing only on different scales?

Are we to see this as yet another example of Muslims rejecting the principles of living in a multicultural society while hypocritically reaping the benefits of living in one? If they don't want to live with non-Muslims then why are they in Canada in the first place? Is Muslim immigration really about immigration or is it Islamic colonialism and invasion through immigration? And are demands for accommodation acts of conquest? If so then they are not here to live with us. They are here to eventually rule over us and turn Canada into an Islamic state. If that is true, even in the slightest, then we need to rethink Muslim immigration and the place Islam has within Canadian society.

In all honesty I happen to side with the landlords. It is their property and if they so desire want to rent to Muslim tenants only then so be it.

But this should be applied to the nation as well expressed through the immigration system. We only accept immigrants from all over the world, including Muslims, on principle but in reality there is nothing compelling us to do so. If Canadians want to keep the country white majority and preserve its European heritage then let our immigration system reflect that desire. Being Canadian is more than just the acceptance of a bunch of values that aren't even unique to the country anyway.

Seriously, what people whole heartedly embraces a future in which they will be rendered a minority through the steady importation of disparate and unassimilating peoples who at times find themselves in conflict with the host culture? I'm pretty sure all native Tibetans just love the Han Chinese colonization of their country and welcome each Han Chinese immigrant with open arms. Aren't they enriching them with their diversity after all?

Muslims can't have it both ways. They can't establish colonies and enforce "no go zones" - quasi mini Islamic states in western cities exclusive to Muslims - yet support indiscriminate, liberal immigration systems that let them waltz into western nations and set up their exclusive Muslims colonies in the first place. I think the populace has made it clear that they are uncomfortable with Muslim immigration and the ever growing presence of Islam within Canadian territory. So, if Muslims feel they have the right to deny non-Muslims the opportunity to live on Muslim owned properties in Canada then I guess the citizens of Canada have the right to deny Muslims the opportunity to enter and settle in the country.

Fair's fair, is it not?

As for Canada's Human Rights Commission let's stop kidding ourselves once and for all. They are not about the universal protection of human rights but a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the host European, Christian heritage culture of Canada chiefly conservative, white, working class males.

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Coming Soon To A Workplace Near You: ATTACK OF THE TOXIC MINORITIES!!!

The photo accompanying this Toronto Star article shows Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) president Sid Ryan with a banner behind him displaying the slogan "solidarity works." Well, that might be true but apparently diversity doesn't. It appears the OFL is having some internal conflicts one of which can be blamed on the agenda they are pushing as good medicine down our collective throats.

It was revealed that a high ranking official levied charges of racial discrimination and harassment against OFL president Sid Ryan. The complainant, one Terry Downey, is the OFL's third highest ranking officer who is an African-Canadian woman born in Nova Scotia. It should be noted that she is a former investigator at the Human Rights Commission of Ontario which tells us she knows how the game is played. Ironically, she too is facing grievances from OFL staff relating to allegations of harassment and mistreatment. I guess what comes around goes around.

OFL infighting aside there is another issue here and that is the toxic minority in the workplace. What is a toxic minority? It can be anyone of any gender or race or religion or sexuality or a language group or a combination of any of all of those markers who will exploit their minority status to satisfy their ambitions or advance an agenda. Personal gain is their chief motivator and they will use what they can to get what they want, chief among their weapons is the law backed kangaroo court system called a Human Rights Commission.

Despite Terry Downey's accomplishments the ideology that guides the minds of those who have co-opted and lead Canada's labour movement leave this nagging at the back of one's mind that Terry Downey, among others, may have been a beneficiary of identity politics. She is, after all, non-white, female, and a single mother; three criteria that if played well can get one far in an environment were diversity and/or a leftist agenda determine the rules of the game. This is a shame really, since it casts doubt on an individual's competency as they are seen as the token "diversity hiree"; a stock character cast to pander to a particular group in a play seeking to appeal to as wide a range of an audience as possible. But it can be to one's benefit and if endowed with ambition you ride it for as far as it will take you.

In the OFL example one high ranking official charged another with racial discrimination and harassment. The allegations were eventually found baseless after a costly investigation and to me this is another example of victim politics strikes again. Victim politics tells us that if you are a woman, or a woman of colour, or a single mother, or a man of colour, or an immigrant, or disabled, etc., it's because you are being discriminated against and to deny you a job, or advancement, or any perk and benefit is a violation of your human rights. Terry Downey may have felt her ambitions were being frustrated because she is a woman and a "racialized" member of society and for no other reason but. So to show that discrimination is not at play Terry Downey should get what she wants because she is a woman and a "racialized" member of society. See how that works?

The University of Windsor's Faculty of Law provides another example. About a year ago the Faculty was looking for a new dean. It ended up not hiring anyone at that time but one of the unsuccessful candidates wasn't going to hear any of it. Claiming discrimination on the basis of race and sex Dr. Emily Carasco sought to force the University to rethink their decision and give her the job anyway. The University should have seen it coming because Dr. Carasco is an apparent grievance monger.

Arguably one of the most asinine examples of late was when an Ottawa couple was awarded $12,000 to be paid by Air Canada because a stewardess was unable to assist them in the French language.

The Employment Equity Commission in Ontario during the governing years of the NDP under the leadership of Bob Rae provides another example and I'm certain there are more.

The lessons here are obvious: 1) if a member of one of the government's official victim groups (which is anyone who is not an able bodied English speaking white male) gets a job or a promotion then its due to competency and accomplishment and if not then its because of discrimination necessitating an investigation and possible rectification; 2) a member of an official victim group should be accommodated everywhere and at all times and if that is not possible then compensation is in order to the benefit of the victim. This being entrenched in the psyche of our multicultural society should we at all be surprised when immigrant and minority groups act like spoiled children throwing a tantrum every time they don't get what they want?

What fuels toxic minority behaviour is a sense of entitlement germinated in the identity politics of perpetual victimhood which itself is rooted in Marxist ideology. This works in concert with multiculturalism which encourages immigrants to feel they deserve special consideration and exemption in the form of accommodation and diversity quotas. So on the one had they are victims and therefore deserve stuff while on the other hand they are different and thus special and deserve stuff as well. The result is an individual with a raging sense of entitlement that if they are denied the stuff they expect to receive the conclusion they come to is systemic discrimination as oppression which means lawsuits and human rights complaints and tribunals and nag, nag, nag.

Small business owners beware. The internal complaint brought against OFL president Sid Ryan cost more than $350,000 dollars in union dues to bring to resolution. That's $350,000 dollars in union dues! Not only is it a large sum of money wasted on nothing it also means Sid Ryan didn't have to pay a cent for his defence. Other people did via the OFL. Now imagine if you are a small business owner and one of your employees brought a similar suit against you. How will you handle it? How do you address charges of racism and sexism? You can defend yourself against wrongful dismissal suits by proving incompetency on the part of the employee. But how do you prove you're not racist or sexist? Do you have $350,000 to spend on a legal defence because few are in as fortunate a position as Sid Ryan to have other people pay it. The complainant on the other hand has their case paid for care of the taxpayer. They have nothing to lose.

In these situations the small business owner will likely capitulate to the irritant because the other option is to fight the complaint which itself is financially punishing and thus risky possibly forcing you out of business as a consequence. This is a reason why small businesses are often exempt from the dogma of diversity for diversity's sake. When it comes to diversity they simply cannot afford the risks it brings with it. Diversity from this vantage point is not good for business.

Larger organizations can absorb the costs of toxic minorities and may see it as a cost of doing business. Canada's major banks, as an example, are tripping over each other to sell financial services to the ever growing immigrant and non-white demographics. As a business strategy they'll hire people who represent target ethnic markets not because the person is possessed of any particular competency but more so to act as a magnet to attract to the bank members of target ethnic markets along with their money. You see this practice clearly on major TV news networks as ethnic talking-head newscasters of no real appeal aside from their telegenic qualities feed us the news while offering no sense of why we should take them or what they are talking about seriously. They are tokens chosen to appeal to particular ethnic markets whose eyes and ears are valued to advertisers at the cost of delivering a newscast of any real substance. To see this tokenism one only need to ask why a major Canadian market like Toronto with its sizeable black population displays a poverty of black faces on the evening news while one cannot go for more than ten minutes without seeing a face from the over represented Asian and south Asian communities. Follow the money and see which ethnic groups are more upwardly mobile and you'll see which ethnic communities are most valued by advertisers and how they influence hiring decisions.

Smaller operations, if they choose to embrace diversity in its hiring practices, better be prepared to embrace the consequences as well and the government appears intent on forcing those consequences on them. One way it does this is through the social pressure generated by a government intent on forcing diversity in all it shapes and sizes onto a passive albeit unreceptive population. Another way is through a kind of rewards system by doling out lucrative government contracts to businesses that best adhere to the diversity dogma. Small businesses will feel compelled to adopt a diversity quota in its workforce and this includes the hiring of potentially toxic minorities even if they are not the best candidates.

To illustrate imagine a work environment that is all white males. Now imagine a position opened up at the work place. Say there are ten applicants of which one is a white woman, another is a non-white woman, and another is a non-white male. Odds are the best candidate may be one of the remaining white males but even if that is the case that still leaves you open to a grievance suit. The failed applicants can allege a culture of discrimination benefiting white males and file a human rights complaint. This will cost the business time and money but not to the complainant who gets their case paid for by the tax payer. To avoid this and to bring diversity into the workplace the business selects the diversity option and hires one of the non-white male candidates. This still doesn't free them of future grievance suits since promotions may be viewed as another avenue of white male privilege if the non-white male employee feels their advancement within the organization is not happening fast enough if at all.

How promoting diversity in the workplace is a good thing is never fully explained. Some argue that it helps make a business, indeed the nation, competitive internationally but this has not, and cannot, be verified. I don't see how choosing the diversity candidate over the best candidate makes you competitive when the potential toxicity of the diversity candidate can make the workplace a poisonous environment. Choosing diversity - especially for it's own sake - does not guarantee competitiveness, or efficiency, or innovation for that matter. The more likely outcome will be mediocrity.

This post was inspired by this video.

Thursday, 22 September 2011

Proving The Fraser Institute Right By Getting It Wrong.

A study conducted by two economists for Metropolis British Columbia (who?) was released in response to the Fraser Institute's own study which concluded that "in the fiscal year 2005/06 the immigrants on average received an excess of $6,051 in benefits over taxes paid" leading to a the fiscal burden in that year estimated to be between $23.6 billion and $16.3 billion. The Metropolis study seems to agree with that conclusion to a degree but it argues that the costs are not great enough to be of a concern. How does it do that? It picks an earlier date to work with and that's where it goes astray.

The Fraser study picks 1987 as the date from which to make it's analysis. The Metropolis study goes back to 1970. Now, it's important to understand the relevance of a base year.

The Fraser study picked 1987 because that's the year Canada's immigration system was being revamped (at the behest of the banking sector I suspect) to become the burdensome mess that it is today. By picking 1987 the Fraser study is demarcating a difference between a pre and post 1987 immigration system. It is, in effect, comparing two different immigration systems to make arguments for what worked and what did not and to suggest how we can fix it.

The Metropolis study, on the other hand, goes back to 1970 and lumps everything into one immigration system. Here's the problem with that. By doing so all the costs of the current immigration system can be masked or ameliorated by previous cohorts of immigrants who brought value to the nation instead of mostly absorbing the benefits. It's like having a really mediocre sports team win the championship because of three star players who do most of the work and score the majority of points, but once all three are gone from the team it descends into last place.

This is what's referred to as moving the goal posts. If you don't like the results of an argument you just change the parameters until it satisfies your position. I mean why stop at 1970? Why not go back to 1950 and take advantage of the golden age of capitalism? How about 1920? How about 1867, the year of Confederation? Why not 1534 when Jacques Cartier first explored the Gulf of St. Lawrence? That way you have over 470 years of Canadian economic history to play with.

The Fraser Institute is not against immigration but it is highly critical of the current immigration system and indeed we do have a different immigration system now than we did in 1970. For starters, the immigration system was more selective, had smaller intake levels which itself was influenced by the nation's economic prospects. Today, it's the sky's-the-limit-anyone-from-anywhere-it-don't-matter-how-the-economy-is-doing free for all. There's a difference and the current immigration is burdensome to the country, quite possible to the extent of hurting the economy.

What's funny is that despite it's efforts to defang the Fraser study the Metropolis study still concludes that immigration is a cost to Canadians at $450 for each immigrant per year! This makes the Fraser study's conclusions all the more plausible. It's raison d'etre it seems is to say the Fraser Institute is right but not by so much. If they are unable to salvage any fiscal benefit of immigration to Canadians by going back to 1970 then it seems likely that the immigration system has been terribly financially burdensome to the country as the Fraser Institute argues. It is a losing investment where all the benefits are eaten up by immigration with little benefit to Canadians.

Reading the CTV news piece on it makes me think there is an agenda afoot by Metropolis BC primarily to keep immigration lax and plentiful so as to direct funds to those who otherwise without the immigration system would have to find alternative work. Metropolis BC is almost exclusively funded by tax dollars and it exits to "place in the public realm relevant material that will aid rational discussion on Canada's emerging immigration policy issues" whatever that's supposed to mean.

The CTV piece also appears to be a plug for S.U.C.C.E.S.S., a mostly tax dollar funded social service agency that "provides services in settlement, English as a second language training, employment, family and youth counseling, business and economic development, health care, social housing and community and volunteer development."

Both Metropolis and S.U.C.C.E.S.S. are dependant on tax dollars for their existence, an existence based on the "need" for dialogue and services that pander to an immigrant community. More immigrants, more tax dollars. Less immigrants, less money. In other words they're rent-seeking organizations.

To show their usefulness, at least in the case of S.U.C.C.E.S.S., the article provides the example of a Japanese immigrant who was unable to find work in Vancouver so S.U.C.C.E.S.S. helped her open a flower shop. But if she was unable to find work then why is she in Canada if there are no jobs for her here? How is her opening a flower shop beneficial to Canadians? How many jobs does that create and how many are well paying? How does it improve our standard of living? It contributes to economic activity but so does a crime wave. In any case economic activity does not equate quality of life.

The truth is her arrival in Canada is illustrative of the problem of the system. We are bringing in too many immigrants than the economy needs. The jobs are not there at least not the good ones. She should not have been allowed entry and permanent residency but her being her does provide work and government funding for the like of Metropolis BC and S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and that is what this is really all about, not the over all benefit of the country.

Monday, 5 September 2011

Reminder: You Have Until Sept. 19 To Complete The Consultation On Immigration Levels And Mix.

You can participate by going here.

In Dalton McGuinty's Ontario Immigrants Are More Valuable Than Canadians.

I just read this.

"People who hire an immigrant for their first job in Ontario would be eligible for a tax credit on the first $10,000 of costs associated with the hiring, a plan that raised some concern on the Liberal conference call.

"It reminded me a little bit of the potential blow back that we could see by positioning it from the opposition as an affirmative action program," said Steele."

Here's the source.

It's infuriating that immigrant vote pandering politics never ceases to reach new lows. While many Ontarians are out of work, underemployed, or precariously employed the ruling Liberal party plans to use the very tax dollars the unemployed and underemployed paid and pay into the provincial coffers to get foreigners - newly arrived people to Canada who haven't paid as many taxes and frankly shouldn't even be here in the first place - into the workforce quicker than Canadians just to hold onto power. It's like having a scarred and bleeding individual pay for salt just so you can throw onto their wounds.

It should be stressed that this is the leaked Liberal party platform for the upcoming provincial Ontario election which I suppose means that it isn't official and is subject to revision. Nevertheless it underscores the psychosis of a political party desperate to hold onto power and save the political careers of mediocre men and women. It's enough to make you consider giving them your vote.

To pursue such a policy is socially dangerous. It can only build resentment towards immigrants by Canadians and foster hostility. It is politics of division, not inclusion, by creating an us vs. them mentality.

It also causes us to question the necessity of immigrants in the first place. If businesses are so desperate for labour and we need immigrants to meet that demand then why does the business community need to be bribed with $10,000 dollars of tax payer money to hire an immigrant?

What it does make clear is that the Liberal party of Ontario is accepting the very real possibility of being defeated at the polls come Oct. 6. Immigrant/ethnic vote pandering politics is a weathervane to how confident a ruling party is with its hold on power. The greater the largess the weaker they feel.

Sunday, 21 August 2011

The Real Story Is In The Comments.

It's gotten to the point now that after reading the headline of an immigration related story in the news I jump to the comments first before I read the article, that is if commenting is allowed. It mostly has to do with the fact that pro mass immigration opinion has become so dependant on discredited assumptions that they have become predictable and boring. It's almost the equivalent of reading studies by scientists who still believe the sun and moon revolve around the earth. Eventually you start to lose patience with what is clearly nonsense but I guess they believe that if they repeat that nonsense often enough others will start to believe it too. If the comments section are any indication of their success, however, then they need to work harder.

For instance this Globe and Mail opinion piece tells us that "More immigrants are in Canada's national interest." The reasons given are, as is typical, assumptive while ignoring the negative impact immigration has on the host society.

For example the authors tells us that "migrants stand to earn as much as 15 times more by moving to another country to work" while not telling us that by moving abroad immigrants decease the earning capacity of those who live in the receiving countries. It's the standard case of "better life for them, worse life for us." That being the case then why should we, as members of the host society, be receptive to existing excessively high immigration levels and the prospects of more?

The authors also utilize the debunked assumption that "Those with the greatest propensity to move are educated young people with access to resources and networks for migration." This is gibberish in the face of reality. It may have been true at one time but it is clearly not true today. Using official Canadian government data we know that less than 25% of immigrants who come to Canada are assessed for any real marketable job skills. The Centre For Immigration Policy Reform puts that figure as low as 17%. The rest are either spouses and dependants, aged relatives who will never work a day in Canada, unskilled sponsored family members, refugees, or the bogus investor class which is nothing more than citizenship for hire, all of whom require no pertinent job or language skills to enter Canada. As for being young, that has been less the case since the 1990s when immigration laws were relaxed and when intake numbers were inflated. As a result the average age of immigrants has increased to the mid 30s, up from the mid 20s when Canada had a sane immigration system. This is mostly due to the fact that Canada is not attracting young skilled workers as the authors want us to believe but rather is importing ageing and aged immigrants instead, made worse by the importation of aged relative imported by the immigrants to attract social benefits unto themselves - like Old Aged Security - while dumping them on our health care system.

It became clear to me, half way through the piece, that the authors were talking out of their asses and if you read the comments to the piece its clear the readers arrived at the same conclusion as well.

In another Globe and Mail article we are informed about Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's meeting in Vancouver with the usual suspects of parasites and rent seekers of the immigration industry. As is expected we are entreated to the usual cry of "more, more, more" from those who make their living off the immigration system while those of us who have to live with the consequences of their selfish motives cry "less, less, less."

For as long as I have been following immigration issues in the "main stream media" it has become increasingly apparent to me that what is presented as consensus opinion in the editorials and op-ed pieces in the nation's major news media outlets and journals of record (which also includes the editorializing embedded in news reports of alleged objectivity) it rarely gels with majority opinion. Indeed, this was the conclusion of a recent Sun TV opinion poll on immigration. Yet despite this the bien pensant still dismiss it as marginal thought on the fringes of debate. This isn't of any surprise since they surround themselves with like thinking individuals and from an optics point of view it would appear to them that they are the majority but in reality they are like the ostrich that hides its head in the sand whereas instead of sand think academia or journalism.

The comments section illustrate that Canadian tendency to say one thing in the public square but the opposite among the "just between you and me" crowd. It provides someone with a comfortable level of anonymity to say what they really think. If a survey of the comments to immigration related news stories over the past few years can be taken as a reading of the pulse of the nation then a majority of Canadians are saying they are displeased with the immigration system and what it is doing to their country. They want change.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Immigration Is Clogging Up The Federal Court System.

In this interview with Brian Lilley by Ezra Levant on the Sun TV program The Source Lilley states that close to half of federal court cases in most months concern themselves with immigration.

I ventured to the Federal Court of Canada web page and looked to see for myself if what he said is true.

It's hard to tell if close to half the cases are immigration related but it's easy to see that a significant number of them are.

It seems immigration has not only done a great job of extending wait times in the nation's hospitals - putting the health of Canadians at risk - by denying Canadians access to immediate health care but it is also clogging up the nation's courts system on the tax payer's dime no less.

One has to wonder how much money could have been saved if these people were not even allowed to set foot on Canadian soil in the first place. These funds could have been invested in productive ventures that could help improve the lives of Canadians. Instead they are being flushed down a judicial toilet in unproductive court cases that in the end will either extend the stay of an undesirable or they'll be allowed to stay giving the nation another immigrant albatross to wear around the neck.

Part of the problem, as Lilley points out, are unelected, unaccountable judges creating policy at the bench. They have made themselves obstacles to executing a functional immigration system that serves the needs of the nation. But as long as the government allows laws like the Singh decision to remain in effect then who are they to complain? They should go to the source of the problem, not complain about the symptoms it creates and address it with band aid solutions.

Tuesday, 2 August 2011

Survey Says: Majority Of Canadians Want Immigration Reduced.

A recent poll tells us, yet again, how out of touch Canada's morally and intellectually superior elites are with the rest of the nation.

Since I have been so lazy of late when it comes to blogging I have to thank Sun TV News for covering this issue.

So, take it away Brian Lilley, I couldn't have said it better myself.

When you share the majority of opinion you are not marginal. You are the mainstream!

Folks, we are legion.

Sunday, 31 July 2011

Have Your Say.

The government is allowing public consultations regarding the immigration system and informs us on how we can have our say.

Saturday, 23 July 2011

Admission Of Guilt: Kenney Acknowledges The Immigration System Is Inadequate At Alleviating Aging Demographic.

If you don't have the blog Blazing Cat Fur bookmarked and read it often I recommend you do so. From him I give you this link.

He has posted a video interview of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney by some talking head at the CBC. They discuss the revocation of citizenship of 1800 people who obtained it illegally but what struck me was when he was asked about immigration's role in addressing Canada's aging demographic. At the 5:10 mark he states "merely to maintain the current age ratio of younger to older people in our population through immigration would require more than quadrupling immigration levels to over 1 million a year." In other words the immigration system, aside from the total collapse of the border, cannot help Canada's aging demographic for the better. Immigration critics have been pointing this out for years and it's nice to hear a Minister of Immigration finally admit it. Note that it would take more that 1 million just to maintain the current ratio. How much more would be required just to reverse it?

Despite this Jason Kenney comes off as being weary about increasing levels and I can imagine why. Simply put, it is too damn expensive as is with diminishing returns with each new cohort; the immigration system costs more than it is worth with immigrants reaping the benefits at the expense of Canadians. For this reason it's financially unfeasible to up immigration targets high enough to reverse an aging demographic trend.

The solution I offer is to cut immigration dramatically to 60,000 or so and restrict it to young, preferably single, economic migrants, refugees aside. Family reunification would be non-existent. I'd revoke the Singh decision allowing for the dissolution of the IRB and have refugees vetted abroad. There are billions in tax dollars to be saved by doing so and with this money reinvest it into Canadian families as a means to up the birth rate. Right now Canadian tax dollars are being wasted on under-performing foreign born nationals.

Speaking of under-performing the link above introduces us to this story as well. I can't think of a better way to tackle Canada's skills shortage than with the importation of 100 Somali family members, can you?

Friday, 22 July 2011

Immigration Lawyers Address Canada's 'Broken' Immigration System.

Blogger Vlade Tepes posted videos of immigration lawyers offering critiques of the immigration system. Watch them here.

The first video is an interview with an immigration lawyer made by Charles Adler on Sun TV News and I am thankful that Sun News is tackling an issue all major news networks across Canada are either too scared or too self-interested to discuss critically. I'm not a cheerleader for the network but they are providing a much absent view from the right on issues affecting Canada.

The other videos are a presentation by immigration lawyer Julie Taub uploaded in three parts. She offers some familiar insight but some very revealing information as well, highlighting the loopholes that enable the rampant fraud that is coming to characterize the immigration system. Some say Canada's immigration system is "broken" or "dysfunctional" but after listening to Julie Taub one may even go so far as to say it is corrupt.

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Immigrants Hardest Hit By Recent Recession.

File this under DUH!

The unemployment gap between immigrant and Canadian-born workers has grown since the global economic meltdown set off in late 2008 and newcomers in Greater Toronto were most affected, says the study being released Friday.{...}

“Recent newcomers already experience significant marginalization in the labour market. What is surprising is they are more badly affected than the other groups and the gap has kept widening,” said York University geography professor Philip Kelly, the report’s lead investigator.{...}

While there is a longer-term trend toward a slightly lower rate of full-time employment for Canadian-born and established immigrants in the last five years, the percentage of recent newcomers working 30 or more hours a week fell from 86.1 to 82.9 per cent.

It suggests new immigrants have found themselves in precarious part-time employment in larger numbers, the report said.

Oh, by the way. We have a skills shortage, or so I'm told.

1800 Stripped Of Citizenship, No Charter Right To Health Care For Illegals, And Immigration Is Down In First Quarter.

There's some good news to report.

First up 1800 people have been stripped of citizenship due to immigration fraud on their part. My response is, "That's it!?" There's got to be more than that but at least it's something. What's remarkable about this is that since Confederation a total of 67 people have had their citizenship revoked. Now, in one fell swoop, 1800 people will lose their citizenship! I hope this isn't the last we hear of something like this.

Next, the government won a recent court challenge that if they lost would drastically undermine the financial viability of the public health care system. A Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that "An illegal immigrant has no right to free medical intervention or ongoing health care under the Charter of Rights." This is an important court ruling because it will give Canada the legal teeth to prevent "medical tourism". Immigration already brings undue stress to the nation's health care system and can bankrupt it on its own, thank you very much. It doesn't need the help of medical tourists.

And finally, immigration is down by 25% this first quarter. Before we celebrate, however, that's a 25% reduction in comparison to the insane number of 280,000 Canada admitted last year, an amount the government recognizes as being outstanding in relation to official targets. In other words we are still on track to accepting more immigrants we actually need and Canadians want to have around. I should point out it is worth reading the comments to the Toronto Star article. It has been said that the real story is in the comments and if that is the case my assumption that Canadians have become weary of immigration and immigrants are not too far fetched. Perhaps they are finally waking up to the long-term consequences of Canada's immigration system and what it means for the future of their country.

One last thing I should mention. The government has introduced reforms to the asylum system that will take effect in December but the reforms will only be applied to claims made after that date. Claims in the backlog will be handled under the older determination system. Some, it seems, were hoping that an asylum will be granted to those in the backlog like the one that was issued in 1989 when the IRB was formed but that doesn't seem to be the case this time. The government intends to keep the backlog and clear it in time. So no blanket amnesty for the many seeking to immigrate to Canada by abusing the asylum system.

Friday, 8 July 2011

Oy Vey, Again With The Skills Shortage.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley announced the launch of a website that will "help Canadians identify which sectors of the economy are currently hiring and where job growth is likely to occur in future years."

The Globe and Mail report notes that "Even during the height of the recession, Ms. Finley said, there were many industries that suffered from a labour shortage because they could not find workers with the required skill sets."

Before we allow ourselves to readily accept the claim that Canada is facing a "skills crisis" - a crisis that both business and their tools in Ottawa have vested interests in promoting regardless of how true it is - we should give consideration to some relevant information.

Linked to the Globe article is a report informing us that Canada pumps out the jobs in June. It tells us jobs in transportation and warehousing were up while jobs in the professional, scientific and technical services sectors were lost. And oh yeah, Canada faces a "skills crisis" by the way.

Furthermore from the Globe we read:

...even though self-employment was way down, there’s good reason to be skeptical that the quality of jobs being created is improving. Not only were most of the gains in services rather than goods-producing sectors of the economy, but part-time job gains outpaced full-time gains after the latter had posted a few solid months in a row. Plus, the annual pace of wage growth slipped to 2 per cent, well below the current rate of inflation and the slowest year-over-year pace since December. {...}

Moreover, total hours worked rose at the slowest annual clip since the first quarter of 2010 -- 1.2 per cent -- which suggests many people who are returning to the work force may be doing so only because they’ve swallowed hard and taken something that doesn’t really replicate the job they lost during the recession.{...}

Also, while the private sector and the public sector both saw job growth in June, governments everywhere are cutting back and it seems extremely unlikely that the public hiring seen during the month -- largely linked to temporary work on the 2011 Census -- will be repeated.

Related to that last point the government is facing budgetary constraints and looking to trim the public sector workforce as a means to address it. The RCMP slashed recruit training by 84% to under 300 recruits this year, down from 1,800 in 2009.

Since Canada is facing a "skills crisis" it should leave one scratching their head to learn that Phds are having a difficult time finding work.

...Canada’s employment rate for PhDs lags behind many European countries, the United States and Australia. Comparable data was not available for many countries including emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil.{...}

In Canada, the unemployment rate for those with PhDs in the natural sciences, it was about 3 per cent; for engineering it was closer to 4 per cent. In the U.S., it was slightly higher than 1 per cent in natural sciences and 1 per cent in engineering.

Is there really a "skills crisis" or is the labour market flooded with so much labour that employers have become unrealistically demanding of qualifications and as a consequence have become extra picky?

Perhaps the truth is that there isn't a "skills crisis" at all but rather the private sector is failing to produce jobs that meet the skills that Canadians posses. Canada has the best educated labour force out of all the G8 nations with the highest percentage of its labour market participants with some form of post-secondary training.

Yet out of all the industrialized nations in the world Canada is one of the likeliest to see its citizens live abroad. Nearly 2.9 million Canadians, almost 10% of the total population, live abroad primarily in the United States making Canada second only to the U.K. out of all industrialized nations in the size of its overseas diaspora. And these are mostly born and bred Canadians not the Canadian-of-convenience variety like the roughly 45,000 "Canadians" living in Lebanon or the some 300,000 "Canadians" living in Hong Kong. There are several reasons why someone would chose to live abroad but I am certain chief among them is employment.

With a highly educated workforce coupled with a high propensity to live and work abroad tells us something about the state of the Canadian labour market. Simply put, the jobs are not there at least not ones that are well paying, stable, and with benefits. True, there may be shortages in health care or the trades but these are not job producing professions in and of themselves and in the case of the trades are oftentimes short-term and contractual. Indeed, the Canadian job is increasingly being described as precarious. This is work that is low paying and insecure.

I believe the "skills crisis" in Canada is being over exaggerated. Hell, even U.S. businesses complain of a skills shortage but the idea is laughable when given further consideration. But the "skills crisis" is thrown around in both countries to promote immigration as a solution while in practice is to be used with the underhanded purpose of attacking the incomes of working Canadians and Americans. If Canada was serious about addressing the "skills crisis" with immigration then why are only 17% of immigrants admitted to Canada come as skilled immigrants.

Even if there is a "skills crisis" is there not enough idle labour in Canada that can be trained to address it? Do we really need 280,000 immigrants (and growing) a year? Did we ever? Why are billions being wasted to import a deluge of foreign born nationals when that money could be redirected into training the Canadian labour force?

And is the continued mass importation of people from China, India, and the Philippines, indeed from most of Asia, going to alleviate it? There is a vast pool of labour of comparable skill and competency to be found in the depressed labour markets of the United States, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece. If a reduction of immigration intake numbers is out of the question then perhaps a shift away from Asia and back to Europe and to the Americas is warranted.

Thursday, 30 June 2011

Jesus Out, Mohammed In!

When I was kid going through the Ontario public school system I remember there was a time when the Lord's Prayer was recited at the start of the school day. That ritual was eventually ended. The arguments for doing so seem reasonable; that the public school system shouldn't show favouritism toward any particular faith and should be neutral in that regard.

Unless that religion happens to be Islam.

I find myself seeing Muslims less so as immigrants but more so acting as a vanguard seeking to convert Canada to Islam and deliver the nation to the caliphate (or at least portions of it). Who needs the sword or Al Quran when you have an immigration system to exploit?

Birds Of A Feather...

Flock together.

It's interesting that children in their most innocent and untainted existence show signs of racial preference for their own. It makes me wonder if racial preference is innate.

You can argue that the children will grow out of it as they develop a mature outlook on life but do they really? If our own lived existence tells us anything is that we don't. When the majority of whites live in white majority neighbourhoods and communities, avoid certain universities because they are "too Asian", and develop social groups the are mostly white you really can't take them seriously when they proclaim their love of racial diversity and multiculturalism. It's all talk and talk is cheap. And it's not restricted to whites either since the same behaviour is evident in Canada's non-white population as well.

That being the case then what success can there be for the kind of multiracial society Canada's elites are gambling the nation's future on? In that so far unrealized future I can't imagine one saying "diversity is our strength" while keeping a straight face.

Thursday, 23 June 2011

Repeal The Singh Decision: So A Sri Lankan Tamil, Somali, And A Muslim Walk Into A Barber Shop...

Here's a joke that illustrates quite well our refugee system. Just think of the barber shop as Canada.

Though the punchline is executed at the expense of Muslims you can substitute them for Sri Lankan Tamils, Somalis, Lebanese, Mexicans, well pretty much the majority of post Singh decision asylum seekers actually, and it's still funny because it's true.

What's not funny is that the joke is on us Canadians because we're not the ones laughing. We need to repeal the Singh decision.

Monday, 20 June 2011

Supreme Court Rules Sponsors Must Repay Welfare Costs Of 'Rogue' Immigrants.

It's nice to post some good news every once and a while.

From the Globe and Mail article:

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the right of federal and provincial governments to collect social-service payments from the sponsors of immigrants.

The landmark ruling involves the cases of eight Ontario immigrant families that sponsored relatives from abroad, and who later went on social assistance.

Under federal immigration law, the sponsors agreed to repay any welfare payments that their new arrivals may have incurred after they got to Canada.

The high court, in a unanimous 9-0 ruling, overturned an earlier Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the sponsors, all of whom claimed various hardships.

The individual cases involved repayments of $10,000 to $94,000 in social assistance to the Ontario government.

I don't know to what extent sponsorship breakdowns occur but to my understanding they are more frequent then what is cared to be admitted. Hopefully this ruling will put an end to it or at least curb it by providing the government with the legal muscle to go after these people who try to defraud the system.

Canada's liberal immigration laws and the lax enforcement of them have subjected the country to this kind of scam, in fact it encouraged and rewarded it, where a landed immigrant sponsors a relative who then goes "rogue" and winds up on social assistance since the sponsor never had pretensions to fulfill his or her duties to being with. It was purely a means to get someone into the country. That the law was challenged in an Ontario court says a lot about those who brought the challenge and the kinds of immigrants we are importing into the country along with their raging sense of entitlement which seems to be a requisite for immigrating nowadays.

To be fair I will say that the majority of immigrants to Canada do not go on or are on some form of social assistance. Most are hardworking and pay taxes. But they do drive down incomes and contribute to the increased cost of living, especially in our cities, so having said that I am left to wonder what exactly are the benefits of mass immigration. Oh right, the ethnic restaurants Canada's white, childless, upper class, cultural elites like so much. Gotcha.

Monday, 6 June 2011

Bruce Bawer & Hege Storhaug Speak in Ottawa

June 8, 2011, 7 PM
Library and Archives Canada
395 Wellington
Admission $20 ($10 for students/seniors)

Tickets available at:
Compact Music (785 Bank, 190 Bank)
Ottawa Festivals (47 William)
Collected Works (1242 Wellington)
or online here:

Please join us for an amazing evening when Bruce Bawer returns to Ottawa with his colleague Hege Storhaug to speak on the problems of immigration in Europe.

Hege Storhaug is the information director of Human Rights Service in Norway and the author of several books on immigration and integration, forced marriage, women in Pakistan, and related subjects.

Bruce Bawer is an internationally-acclaimed author, whose recent book is "Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom". and here are some short reviews:

"Bruce Bawer has yet again written an excellent book....I truly hope that it will serve as an eye-opener for everyone."
Geert Wilders

“Written with an urgency and clarity that makes it hard to stop reading and re-reading it. It should be studied by all who wish to understand the forces at work in the West that make an Islamic ‘House of Peace’ a brewing nightmare.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Bruce has translated Hege's new book, "But the Greatest of These Is Freedom: The Consequences of Immigration in Europe."

The authorized English translation of the explosive Norwegian bestseller about the consequences of immigration in Europe.

From Norwegian and Danish reviews:

“A necessary and brave book.”
Henrik Gade Jensen, JYLLANDS-POSTEN

“A sharp and necessary book, one of the most important of the season.”
Lars Saabye Christensen

“A painful but necessary book to read. It is the most important contribution ever to the Norwegian immigration and integration debate….It should be obligatory reading for everyone who works with foreigners in Norway.”
Tore Andreas Larsen, FREMSKRITT

“If Hege Storhaug’s revelations about how our country and other Western societies are being attacked by Islamic fundamentalists…are not taken seriously by the powerful politicians, we will, within a few years, see a different, illiberal European in which a mentality out of the Middle Ages will wield absolute power…..One of the most important opinion books that have come along in recent years.”\
Oddbjørn Solstad, DRAMMENS TIDENDE

Fred Litwin

Free Thinking Film Society

(613) 261-9060

I was asked to promote the event of which I am happy to. If you happen to be in the Ottawa area or can make it there on short notice then this may be something you would want to check out. If not then at least you are now introduced to the names of Bruce Bawer and Hege Storhaug.

I must admit I am not familiar with the work of either speaker but judging from the promo Muslim immigration and integration seems to be the key discussing point.

I don't write about much about Muslim immigration to Canada because there are many others covering the issue, like husband and wife bloggers blazing cat fur and five feet of fury as well as jihad watch, Mark Steyn, and others. For me to do so as well would be redundant.

I will say this on the matter. Generally Muslim immigrants are no different than any other. Driven by self interest they are lured to shopping mall Canada and the materialistic fantasies a consumer society such as ours promises. To them, integration starts and stops at buying stuff on credit.

And like all immigrants they too come with baggage but in their particular case that baggage happens to be Islam, a religion that is more than just a belief system but is also a political organization with its own system of jurisprudence called Sharia.

Making things worse is the Islamic ambition of a world wide caliphate. How many Muslim immigrants share in this ambition I really cannot say but considering the community support given to the implementation of Sharia in western jurisdictions and the incessant demands for religious accommodation (as they excuse themselves from ever doing the same) I have to say the number is disconcertingly high. This makes them more than just immigrants. It makes them missionaries who will deliver the nation to Allah either by persuasion, the law, or simply overwhelming the host culture by numbers. Demography is destiny and if Muslims are the majority then they will set the course of the country. If Muslim dominated neighbourhoods in European cities are any indication of how they will behave when they constitute the national majority then we need to address the perils of Muslim immigration in the open.