Tuesday, 17 July 2012

Multiculturalism, Immigration And The Illegal Experimentation On Canadians.

I like to seek out a wide range of opinions on issues that interest me to help me see things more clearly and introduce me to angles that are not obvious to me from the start. This entails entertaining the thoughts of those on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.  Letting one's political leanings decide how one should approach and argue a topic is myopic.  Life is not that simple and sometimes, I will admit, I find myself agreeing with the left on some issues while also thinking they're bat shit insane on others.

So in that vein I was scouring YouTube for political commentary on the current economic climate of the west and came across this video of respected leftist guru, Noam Chomsky.

I believe in the video he is engaged in a Q&A with the audience of a speaking engagement he had. The topic of discussion is about the austerity measures many western governments are engaged in along with health care and education.  For the purposes of this post none of that is important.  What is important is what he says at the beginning.  

He mentions an unidentified "well known economist" who thinks European leaders could "be charged with violating an ethical and in fact a legal principal namely experimentation with human beings, cannot be taken without their consent."  He goes on to imply that the austerity measures, which have "failed in the past", are illegal since they are being imposed by the ruling classes upon a populace that has not agreed to them nor has any influence on how the austerity measures should be implemented.  To him, the austerity measures are an illegal experimentation since non-consenting human beings are the test subjects.

If that is so then one could follow that line of thinking and argue that multiculturalism and the immigration system that sustains it are, in fact, an illegal experimentation being imposed upon the non-consenting Canadian populace by a powerful ruling class.

Let's be clear here.  Canadians never fully consented to having their country turned into a "social experiment" in which they were to be the test subjects.  This came to be because of decisions made in the halls on Parliament Hill by a handful of people with little to no input from the Canadian population.  No referendum was held on it and none of the major political parties then and now has campaigned against the multicultural agenda denying Canadians the option to vote against it.  We had no choice or say in the matter.  It was imposed upon us by a political and cultural elite who maintain it to this day.

That being the case then the "social experiment" that Canada has been turned into is illegitimate and multiculturalism as social policy (and by extension the immigration system) is illegal because we never agreed to it and its outcome nor did we willingly assume the risk if the "social experiment" were to fail.

Therefore we shouldn't give it any acknowledgement.  Doing so legitimises it and thus you consent to being experimented on.  It is better to say that Canada is not a multicultural society.  Canada is a Euro-American state playing host to a myriad of world cultures and the colonies of foreign nations.  

And if you stop to think about it that's what Canada is.  At least it is for now.

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Sprawling, Sprawling, Sprawling...

Though The Roads Are Swollen
Keep Our Cities Sprawling
Oh My!
Developer's And Their Greed
On Short-Term Profits They Feed
And City Council's Always On Their Side.
It's All Disappearing
Good Farmland, Trees, They're Clearing
Burdened with one of the highest debt levels in the GTA, York Region officials are pressing some municipalities to fast-track suburban sprawl in an effort to tap into lucrative development fees. 
With a debt of $1.95 billion and growing, York Region is counting on the levies from current and future development of single-family homes in Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham to pay back the money it borrowed to build extensive water and sewer infrastructure. 
But encouraging this type of development runs counter to the province’s Places to Grow Act, which has mandated cities to begin building up instead of building out.
And critics warn, it’s a plan with the wrong incentive at heart: it puts the need for development dollars ahead of good planning that can, for example, ease congestion.{...}
Dividing the debt by population shows that every resident in York Region owes $1,840. In Toronto the amount is $1,305 per person.
Almost 78 per cent of York's debt charges are based on money it hopes to recover from future growth.
“How do we fund growth? We fund it through development charges,” said Edward Hankins, the region’s Treasury Office director. “But since we don’t get paid until a new resident moves in, we actually have to borrow the money in advance.”
So York Region incurred a debt to build water and sewer infrastructure to accommodate a population it doesn't have yet but anticipates it will have in the future from which it expects to recapture the money invested and hopefully see a profit.

And we all know where they expect to get the people to "move in" and pay down their debt don't we? 

This is a case of putting the carriage before the horse.  But it's also a form of gambling since they are investing money in anticipation of a positive outcome of a future event.  The problem here is that no one can predict the future and something may happen that will disrupt population growth in Ontario.

There's no guarantee immigrants will continue to settle in Ontario in such high numbers though the odds are pretty damn good.  The trend now is that many are heading west.

The immigration system may collapse under it's own weight.  It's simply too costly to run and the government may be forced to cut immigration dramatically.

The most concerning thing here is this "if you build it, they will come" approach to planning commits them to encouraging population growth and thus urban sprawl.  They will lobby the government to keep immigration levels high to help them recoup their investment.

But what kind of immigration can they expect to fuel their population growth?  Will they help build a liveable community or an urban sprawl slum?

The latter may very well be the case.  A related Toronto Star article reveals a map of Toronto and the GTA displaying areas of income disparity.
Toronto’s middle-class suburbs of the 1970s have turned into “urban deserts” of growing poverty while the city centre has become an enclave for the ultra rich.
But in the Montreal region, the suburbs are growing increasingly wealthy while poverty is spreading in the band of communities just outside the city’s historic downtown.
Meantime, the wealthy suburbs of North and West Vancouver have grown richer while poverty has spread east and south of downtown since 1970.
What’s common for all three cities, however, is that the middle class is shrinking, notes University of Toronto researcher David Hulchanski, whose ground-breaking The Three Cities Within Toronto report in 2007 was the first to map Statistics Canada Census income data over time by neighbourhood.
The new Montreal and Vancouver research, presented at U of T last week and not yet published, is part of a seven-year study of neighbourhood inequality in six Canadian cities that Hulchanski hopes will help explain why this is happening and what measures can halt or at least ease the 35-year-trend.
It's not that the middle class is shrinking, it's also being overrun by immigrants.  The red areas on the map clearly demarcate immigrant heavy, ethnic ghettoes that have taken root in Toronto over that past 35 years!  It doesn't a genius to see this but it takes an academic to totally miss it.

Here's another Toronto Star article that helps drive this point home.

Toronto’s poverty rates are higher than the provincial and national average. Overall, recent immigrants fare the worse with nearly half (46 per cent) in poverty. One in three children (under age 15) is living in poverty and 31 per cent of youths (15 to 24). Housing costs is the big driver, with almost 47 per cent of all tenants paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. Another 23 per cent pay an astonishing 50 per cent or more on rent. 
Earlier ward-by-ward profiles have shown Ward 1 Etobicoke North to have the highest incidence of child poverty and persistent overall poverty levels. The new report, based on 2006 census figures, show that Ward 28 Toronto Centre-Rosedale has the highest levels of poverty of any single ward. 
More than four in 10 (41 per cent) of Ward 28 residents live in poverty — that numbers 23,730, more than the population of many Ontario towns. In fact, no matter the overall state of the ward, every Toronto ward has significant pockets of poverty.
Ward 28, with Regent Park, Moss Park and parts of St. Jamestown, has numbers that leap off the page. Some 59 per cent of the kids are in poverty, 54 per cent of the youth, 52 per cent of racialized groups, 56 per cent of recent immigrants.
All those wards are areas of high immigrant settlement. 

This should raise questions about whether immigration of this massive scale was necessary since it's fruits are clear to see today.  If they want to halt or ease the "35-year-trend" how about looking to cutting immigration levels as part of the solution?

It should be clear to anyone now that immigrant driven population growth has been a disaster for Toronto and the surrounding area.  Not only is valuable farmland being threatened but we have created a place polarized not only by race, ethnicity, and religion but income as well.

Sunday, 8 July 2012

Can You Please Leave Canada? Pretty, Pretty, Please With Sugar On Top?

We'll give you $2,000 if you do.

What a joke!  So the government wants to bribe failed refugee claimants to voluntarily return home with a one-way plane ticket and up to $2,000 to help them re-establish themselves in their homelands.  Do you think anyone will seriously take them up on that?  For that to work they're going to have to offer more money than that.

And apparently other countries have similar incentives in place.
At least 20 other countries, mostly in Europe, offer similar programs. England gives failed refugee applicants up to $6,000 to leave.
Spain attempted this before too as it's once lauded immigration system spiralled out of control amid worsening economic conditions.

I wouldn't say this money being offered is an incentive for failed refugee claimants to willingly excuse themselves from Canada but more so an enticement for future would-be asylum seekers to try their luck with the Canadian asylum system as it makes it less risky to do so.  If you're successful in your bid then you get Canadian citizenship.  If you fail you get a plane ticket home and a possible $2,000 to help cover costs.  How can you go wrong?

Let's see this for what it really is.  This is another work around solution to the real problem which is the Singh decision yet the government has shown no inclination at addressing this fact.  As long as the government lets the Singh decision stand unchallenged any attempt to fix Canada's dysfunctional asylum system will be frustrated.

Wednesday, 4 July 2012

Recipe For Making 'New Canadians' (but will they ever be Canucks?)

Ingredients: As many foreigners as you want.

1. Take foreigner(s) and place them in Canada.

2. Let sit for three years.

3. VoilĂ !  Instant  "new Canadians!"

Another Canada Day has come and gone and along with fireworks we Canadians were entreated to the showcasing of a citizenship swearing-in ceremony by the nation's media.  These ceremonies are perfunctory and attendance is not mandatory.  The one's who show up are the one's who feel like it while many others don't bother.

The impression being made is these people are Canadians now as if to imply that saying some words and signing one's name to a piece of paper is all that is required to be considered Canadian.  But we know deep down that being Canadian is more than that.

Let's put things in perspective.

Arguably Canada is the easiest nation to immigrate to in the world.  You'll have a tougher time immigrating to Mexico or India or China or anywhere else for that matter than you will immigrating to Canada.

The residency requirement for Canadian citizenship is laughably short.  One only need to have lived in Canada for 1,095 days over a four year period or for three out of four years.  You can break that time up however you wish so long as you have spent 1,095 days over four years in Canada.  For others like live-in care givers you just need two years of living in Canada and that will put you on the path to permanent residency and eventual citizenship despite technically being a temporary foreign worker and being bereft of skills this country needs.  For investor immigrants all you need to do is invest an insulting $800,000 and you can buy Canadian citizenship for yourself and for your family.  When it comes to Canadian citizenship we give it away like toys in McDonald's Happy Meals.  

It is argued that by quickly granting citizenship to immigrants - sorry, I mean to say "new Canadians"- it gets them politically engaged and voting.  Since elections are typically held once every four years this suggests that to the political parties immigration is just a voter importing mechanism which would explain why none of the nation's political parties are for decreases in immigration levels.  On the contrary they always want more immigration since more immigrants means more voters to pander to.

Our expectations for immigrants is low to the point where we don't expect them to assimilate at all yet call them Canadians just the same.  It's like the Chinese woman in the linked article above.  She lives in the largest of the Chinese colonies in Toronto, speaks Chinese exclusively almost everyday, but still thinks she's Canadian.  And to her this is what being Canadian is all about which is to say you are Canadian by not being Canadian.  Put another way you can be Canadian by not being Canadian.  None of this makes sense of course but it's a paradox allowed by multiculturalism.  It can only be rectified by either eliminating the Canadian identity altogether and replacing it with one delineated by the rhetoric of multiculturalism; or by the creation of a vague Canadian identity that is based on the acceptance of something called "Canadian values" which are values not unique to this country but are shared by the western world.  In either case nothing uniquely Canadian is created.

With that said are "new Canadians" really Canadians or just foreigners with Canadian citizenship?  Are they Canadians or just Canadians on paper?  Does staying put for three years in Canada while hiding away in an ethnic enclave - a politically correct euphemism for colony - really make one a Canadian?  I don't think so.

Equally important is do "new Canadians" even care?  I don't think so either.  To them Canadian citizenship is a legal document that grants them entitlements to Canadian society.  Canada is just the easier America to get into and unlike the United States we don't have a clearly defined cultural identity so to them there's nothing to assimilate into.  Canadians may disagree with them on that but to the "new Canadians" they don't see it.  To them Canada is a land of entitlements and benefits, it's a harbour in a storm, it's an ATM machine and a shopping mall and nothing more.

It's too easy to immigrate here and we give away citizenship too readily and this creates those attitudes and sense of entitlement.  We need to toughen the immigration laws, citizenship requirements, and be more selective while decreasing intake quotas but that goes without saying.

So as another Canada Day comes and goes and we anticipate the arrival of the next one we should pause and reflect on what kind of country immigration is creating.  Canada has been described as a "nation of nations" but I think a nation of colonies is more accurate.  If you speak Chinese all day and everyday and live among other Chinese doesn't make you a Canadian.  You're a Chinese national living among other Chinese nationals in a Chinese colony on Canadian soil.  You're a colonizer, not an immigrant, no matter how long you lived here.  Same can be said of Italians, south Asians, or Portuguese and so on.  Being a Canadian is a choice expressed by one's acts, loyalties, and emotions and not by what some words on a piece of paper say.  You may say you're Canadian but your actions tell us otherwise and on a subconscious level we know the difference.  You may say you're Canadian and have all the legal documentation that says so but can you truly say you're a Canuck?