Sunday, 29 May 2011

Mississauga's 'Colony of Wives' Illustrates That There Are No Jobs For Immigrants.

So why, again, are we importing record numbers of them?

Articles like the one linked to above mask the real story behind a, yet another, immigrant puff piece concocted to curry sympathy from the reader instead of critically thinking about the issue.

In a nutshell the article is about immigrant women, in this instance from Pakistan, who suffer the loneliness and anxieties of being single mothers in Canada while their husbands work abroad.

When I read the story the first thing that came to my mind was to ask why are they here? The article admits that their husbands were unable to find suitable work in Canada and so work abroad while their families remain here in Canada so that they can do time to secure Canadian citizenship. So if they, the husbands, were unable to find suitable work in Canada then why are they here and, more importantly, why did Canada let them immigrate here in the first place since there was no real demand for the labour?

What's striking is that this phenomenon is so commonplace that it has allowed the creation of the so-called "colony of wives" in Mississauga, a city approaching one million inhabitants neighbouring Toronto on its west side. This is more proof in the pudding that Canada is importing too many immigrants and that there are no jobs for them unless they want to work in dead-end service sector jobs.

Also, the story also spotlights the parasitic practice of dumping family members in Canada while one parent, typically the husband, works abroad. By doing so he minimizes his tax responsibilities that otherwise support services he expects to take full advantage. This practice, one Chinese and Korean immigrants have gotten down to a science and made into a cultural practice, has to stop. This can be done by taxing overseas income and making requirements to obtain and hold Canadian citizenship tougher.

Muslim Inbreeding.

I feel so enriched. How about you?

Saturday, 21 May 2011

The Ethnic Conservative Turns Out To Be A Myth.

The Toronto Star has this to report.

It turns out the Conservatives didn't get much help from immigrant and "ethnic" voters after all.

“Across the board, there doesn’t seem to be anything but a minor shift in terms of the immigrant versus non-immigrant vote where Conservatives are concerned,” said Stuart Soroka of McGill University.

“Up to this point, there’s a bit of gain there, but it seems tiny,” said Patrick Fournier, of the Université de Montréal.


The Canadian Election Study has found little evidence to back up the suggestion — now almost conventional wisdom — that the Conservatives owe their majority to Kenney’s wooing of the immigrant vote, at least on a national scale.

“Many politicians and journalists, during the campaign at least, bought into a story about the immigrant vote that isn’t reflected in our data,” Soroka told the Star.

So where exactly did the Conservatives find their support to secure a majority?

The academics involved with the Canadian Election Study calculated what they call the “immigrant vote gap” — the percentage of votes from immigrants minus the percentage of vote from non-immigrants. Only the Liberal party, traditionally seen as the party for new Canadians, registers positive figures in this analysis (though less positive than when they were the ruling party). The Conservatives, meanwhile, are still getting more votes from non-immigrants than they are from immigrants, and the vote gap hasn’t changed much since 2008, the researchers found.


According to Bricker’s findings, immigrants and ethnic minority voters lean Conservative the longer they’ve been in Canada. After about 10 years, in fact, their voting patterns and motives are not that different from Canadians born in this country. The same is true of second-generation Canadians who hail from so-called “ethnic” communities, Bricker told the conference.

In short, the core of the Conservative vote came from Canadians along with some support from immigrants who have been in the country at least for 10 years. So it appears Jason Kenney and the Conservatives accomplished nothing more than import more supporters for their political rivals. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

They should wise up. The Conservatives cannot woo ethnic vote blocks with promises of more immigrants and more liberal immigration policies. It has proven to be a failure this election as it proved to be a failure when the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives were reduced to two seats in parliament effectively destroying the party.

Armed with this knowledge the Conservatives should cut back on immigration targets since we don't need the vast majority of them anyways. Having a majority government grants them power for a minimum of four years, five tops. If they stubbornly insist on maintaining the immigrant inflow they will have imported over one million immigrants into the country during their governance most of whom we can assume will support the Liberals come next election.

My prediction is the Conservatives will try to out-Liberal the Liberals when it comes to immigration (yes I think they're that stupid). As the report in the article notes the Liberals still enjoy widespread support from immigrant and ethnic communities. The Conservatives will work to change that by giving us more of the same which means more immigration even in opposition to economic reality and popular will. And it will get them nowhere.

Thursday, 19 May 2011

More On The Skills Shortage Canard.

A reader brought to my attention this interview with a labour market analyst. It appeared on a CBC radio show called Metro Morning.

It's short, being only 6:24 in length, but informative. For instance he states the open secret that Canada has the greatest number of its labour force participants with some form of post-secondary education in the whole of the industrialized world. That being true then for what reason do we need so many immigrants?

He also mentions that the business community cries poverty when it comes to recruiting available labour to meet its needs when that ostensibly doesn't seem to be the case. It's not that there's a shortage of available labour, I might add. It's that there's a shortage of cheap labour and this is where immigration comes in.

The business community claiming a shortage of labour in contradiction of reality is not new. This was the case for Silicon Valley and the tech boom of the 1990s where tech jobs seemed to be aplenty yet few people were getting hired. Stories of super picky recruiters are infamous and many. The explanation given was that to appear healthy to investors and pump IPOs start-up tech companies created the illusion of growth by putting out ads for employment when they had no intention of hiring. Another explanation was that they wanted to import immigrants to work on the cheap since they were unable to find the right recruit. Supporting this we have this American example from I doubt the situation differs much here in Canada.

More revealing are the stats he gives. 29% of full time/full year cashiers posses a post-secondary degree. This is true for 19% of cleaners and 45% of servers in restaurants and bars. It is more accurate to say we have a glut of skill labour than a shortage of it. And this is the labour market we are importing record numbers of immigrants into. This is why Toronto has the best educated taxi drivers in the world. It has little to do with systemic discrimination and more to do with the fact the Canada didn't need them at all. If you are an immigrant and you got hired then congratulations on being the diversity quota. The less white your skin the more likely this is true.

He also mentions that the labour market is increasingly becoming polarized between high skilled labour and low skilled labour with the carving out of the middle which is where the middle class was to be found. Those middle ground jobs are being outsourced to the countries from which we are importing labour. This is tantamount to rubbing salt in the wound. At one time those low skilled entry jobs were the stepping stones to advancement within an organization but that is no longer the case.

Let's do away with the labour shortage canard. It's another ruse to sell an unpopular policy to a misinformed public. There may be spot shortages in certain labour markets but I doubt it is enough to justify the numbers of immigrants Canada imports.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

And It Only Costs Us $16.3 To $23.6 Billion Annually Along With Our Country.

Wow! What a bargain!

It's probably a good thing we Canadians are not known for our entrepreneurial spirit. If the way we have been investing in immigration over the past twenty three years is any indication of how we would invest in a business we would be chronically broke and bankrupt.

It's a good thing we are a resource rich nation because how else are we able to subsidize a money hemorrhaging scheme like immigration that seems to only exist now for its own sake; to import voters for the party in power; to support the immigration industry; to support a real estate bubble; and nothing more.

This doesn't mean we don't derive any benefits from immigration. It does mean that any benefits are being eaten up but the system itself and then some.

This is a call for smarter immigration and that means less of it and more strict criteria.

Monday, 9 May 2011

Everyone's A Racist!

So says science:

Here's something that doesn't make sense: On one hand, we know that racism is still a big deal (you can't argue with it -- studies show it still turns up in everything from jury decisions to hiring practices), but how many outright racists do you actually know? How many people at your office fling the blankets aside each morning and scream, "TODAY I SHALL OPPRESS A BLACK MAN!"?

Probably not that many. So we have the seemingly impossible situation of a world with a lot of racism and not many racists (and no matter how anonymous you make the poll, you can never find significant numbers of people admitting to being racist). Science suggests it's because all of us are a little more racist than we think.

And Canadians being the nicest people in the world may be a rumour that got out of hand, a rumour started by a Canadian no doubt:

See, no matter how much we make self-deprecating jokes or talk about how we suck and play the role of the lovable loser, experiments show that deep down, we think we are nicer and more generous than we actually are. Psychologists have long known that people tend to think they are more altruistic than the world in general, but researchers weren't sure if that was because we overestimate how great we are or because we underestimate everyone else. Hint: It's the first one.

Although the above information is from a humour site it still contains elements of truth. Indeed, what we find so funny is "funny because it's true."

It may very well be that we humans are prone to racist impulses that can be masked or tamed but no so easily defeated. If that is the case then the we as a nation need to stop and reflect upon this if we are to insist upon creating a multi-racial paradise or at least a reasonable facsimile thereof. That paradise may turn out to be fantasy; the reality, hell.

And the altruism of the common man is more myth than fact. Self interest is a very powerful motivator. If there is nothing or little to be gained by being nice then humans are disinclined to behave that way.

This is why I tend to roll my eyes every time I am told that immigrants come to Canada to contribute to her success. Hogwash! They are here for personal gain, not to help us Canadians out as if we need their help in the first place. If they were so inclined to help a people then they would help their own by staying in their respective nations to work to improve their lot in life and those of their fellow countrymen.

A chapter in the book Superfreakonimcs debunks scientific studies that claim to prove that altruism is a dominant characteristic of humanity. It does this by spotlighting the problem these studies had but failed to take into consideration; that the subjects were being watched and they knew it. Armed with this knowledge they behaved in a fashion that would make them look good to those conducting the study. Remove this awareness and people acted differently and not very altruistic at all but were guided more by self interest.

This is why I feel immigration, as well a multiculturalism, oftentimes is regarded favourably by Canadians in polls and surveys. It's because Canadians are responding in the way they think they should to appear favourable to those asking the questions. They know they are being watched and their answers recorded. And on a grander scale they know the world is watching too since inevitably their nation will be measured against other countries. But in confidence and in the real world Canadians' attitudes contradict what is alleged in polls leaving one confused as to how favourable Canadians view immigration and multiculturalism. If I may so inclined as to answer for them I have to say, not very.

I'll be away from a computer for a week. Comments will not be seen until then.

Want To Know Why Immigration Is Off The Agenda With The Main Stream Media?

Because twits like this work in it. She speaks like a true mutlti-cultist.

This is what happens when you abandon critical thinking and willingly let your brain be dry-cleaned by official propaganda. When you speak you sound more like a well programmed robot than as an individual with a working brain. You can predict the next sentence that comes out of her mouth before she even thinks it.

Thursday, 5 May 2011

In Bizzaro World Illegal Immigrants Are Sneaking Into Canada From The U.S.

Sign of the times.

The first link panders to Canadian hubris but remember it is the weakest segments of Canadians society; the poor, the unemployed, the underemployed, recent immigrants, the disabled; who suffer most from illegal immigration but I doubt the spoiled, privileged brats of the left care about that. I guess their racist war on Canada's host majority society is more important than whether some Canadians can pay the rent and feed the kids.

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Multiculturalism Or A Jail Cell. Welcome To The 'New Canada™.'

First day post-election win and this is what we can expect from the Conservatives and their majority.

This is an assault on Canadians' freedom of speech but should we be surprised it has come to this? You cannot have the "Trudeaupian" multicultural society without an erosion of your rights. And in this case it is our freedom of speech which is the most fundamental principle of a functioning democracy.

To have the "just society" of "peace, order, and good government" of the "Trudeaupian" multicultural variety you need to have a legal framework to force people to get along because left alone to its own devices it is unworkable. This attests to the weakness of multiculturalism and how little confidence those who espouse it have in its viability. So we must be compelled to accept it by threat of legal action.

Dissent in the "new Canada™" is not allowed. Diversity is encouraged just not diversity of opinion. This is, of course, about power and control. It is not about good governance or the creation of a "just society." It's multiculturalism or a jail cell.

If limiting and dictating what one can say and think is one of the "gifts" of immigration and multiculturalism then how does this make the country a better place to live when one lives in fear of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong person?

But it's a good thing most Canadians don't use their freedom of speech anyways so they won't notice let alone bother to care.

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

So They Delivered. Should They Now Expect Payment?

It appears courting the "ethnic vote" has paid off for the Conservatives. They managed to secure a majority government in part by capturing seats in immigrant/ethnic heavy electoral-ridings in and around Toronto. So does that mean the Conservatives now owe them?

On immigration matters the Conservative win last night is a double edged sword. The Conservatives were introducing much needed reforms to the immigration system while ruling as a minority government but they found their efforts frustrated in Parliament by the opposition. Now that they have a majority they can now get things done so in this sense there is something to be hopeful about.

However, just remember it was the last Conservative majority government in Ottawa that got the nation into its current immigration mess. Then called the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada; the party of Canada's first Prime Minister and a father of Confederation, Sir John A. MacDonald; it was by the inept leadership of that buffoon Brian Mulroney that the Conservatives upped immigration levels by 100,000 literally overnight and failed to invoke the notwithstanding clause to repeal the Singh decision. Because of a Conservative majority government Canada is now burdened with the highest immigrant intake levels in the world and an internationally infamous joke of a refugee system.

Since the Conservatives made the mess, they should clean it up starting by cutting back on intake quotas and invoking the notwithstanding clause to repeal the Singh decision. But the Conservatives so far has shown no interest in doing either.

My fear is that it will be business as usual to maintain the trust the Conservatives have cultivated with immigrant voters. This means any changes to the status-quo could be perceived as an act of betrayal and lost support in future elections. If any changes are made it will be higher immigration intake quotas, more relaxed rules, more useless relatives, and more immigrants from too few source nations to accelerate the re-colonization of Canada. Canada has lost some of its sovereignty since its immigration system is being determined by the whims of a growing foreign born population of a colonial mindset. How the Conservatives will act now, we'll just have to wait and see.

In related news when you read this just keep telling yourself "a Canadian is a Canadian" or so we're told.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

An ideal fertility rate is somewhere between 1.6 and 2.6 births per 1,000 women? Say What!?

We find some interesting commentary from this Toronto Sun article from a man whose job it is to study demographics, not armchair quarterback it from the editorial desk of some left leaning Canadian newspaper. It appears birth rates have risen for the sixth year in a row according to Statistics Canada:

It's not a baby boom. It's not even to replace our own numbers. But more so than other parts of the developed world, Canadian women are becoming moms.

The number of births in Canada rose in 2008 for the sixth consecutive year, according to data released Wednesday.


That reflects a total fertility rate in 2008 of 1.68 children per woman - the highest total fertility rate on record since 1992, when it was 1.69.

I think it would be higher were it not for the high cost of living in Canada much of it attributed to increasing housing prices outpacing incomes. Rising housing prices in the midst of stagnant and decreasing incomes is something immigration cannot claim innocence.

While the rate is still "well below" the generational replacement level of 2.1 children per woman - the rate to replace the country's population in the absence of migration - it is still above other developed nations such as Italy at 1.39, and Japan at 1.21.

In comparison to other industrialized nations Canada does not fare too badly.

It should be noted that while many other advanced industrial economies have birth rates below replacement levels none of them have embraced the mass immigration dogma as enthusiastically as Canada has. Some have almost no immigration system to speak of, like Japan and South Korea, or are cutting back on immigration. What makes Canada, an economy that is largely resource based, so special that it needs to import the highest number of immigrants per capita than any other country in the world?

Here's the kicker:

And although the fertility rate is below the generational replacement level, immigration compensates for a fewer births than at other times in the country's history.

"The population of Canada would still be growing without immigration, but at a slower pace," Foot said.

An ideal fertility rate is somewhere between 1.6 and 2.6 births per 1,000 women, Foot said.

A society with too few children can't afford the costs of caring for its aging population, and a society with too many children will suffer from political instability because there won't be enough jobs for them all, Foot said.

Canada, with a fertility rate of 1.6, is on the right track.

"I think our position's very good," Foot said. "Canada's demographic future is considerably better than most of Western Europe and Japan, and Southeast Asia."

David Foot is an economics professor at the University of Toronto. He wrote Boom, bust & echo 2000: Profiting from the demographic shift in the new millennium along with Daniel Stoffman. And you might recall that Daniel Stoffman wrote Who Gets In: What's wrong with Canada's immigration program - and how to fix it so I think it's safe to say these men are better positioned to give informed commentary on the immigration system then most.

What's pertinent to take away from this is that Canada's population will continue to grow in the absence of immigration albeit at a slower pace. This has to do with Canadians having children in a time when we are living longer then ever before. This begs us to ask if immigration is really about population growth; or is that just a ruse to hoodwink Canadians into accepting a disagreeable policy for the sake of special interests like banks, property developers, law firms, the immigration industry itself, social workers, politicians, neo-colonialists, etc.

It's also interesting to read the assurance that even with a birth rate below replacement levels, Canada's 1.68 birth rate is "on the right track." The reasoning is that too many children can outpace job creation and potentially destabilize a society. This is a future Middle Eastern nations like Iran must cope with. On the other hand if you have too few children you will not have enough to support the economy and an aged society but this doesn't appear to be Canada's case.

So all in all the low birth rate argument appears to be an over exaggerated and misleading one. If Canada's 1.68 birth rate is "on the right track" then excessive immigration may create a problem when one didn't exist. The question is if Canada does have excessive immigration. I think it does and we are currently creating future problems that could have been avoided if saner heads prevailed and those who actually know what they are talking about were paid attention to. If immigration built the country it can also ruin it.