Monday, 16 December 2013

Nipping Asylum Shopping In The Bud.

This story appeared in today's Toronto Star. It concerns an asylum seeking family from North Korea whose claim was rejected by a refugee appeal tribunal.

In classic Toronto Star fashion the story sides with the family by pandering to the reader's emotions while under representing pertinent details that would lead one to conclude that Ottawa was in the right to overturn the family's asylum claim.

Some facts need presenting. Firstly, the family traveled to Canada via South Korea. This means that they landed in South Korea first prior to trying their luck with Canada's refugee system. South Korea grants automatic citizenship to any defecting North Korean. Therefore these people were automatically entitled to South Korean citizenship. South Korea is a democratic, industrialized, first world nation with a standard of living on par with if not better than Canada's.

Second, while the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR) places responsibilities on the signatory nations - Canada and South Korea being signatory nations - it also places responsibilities on those seeking asylum. One responsibility is to seek internal flight within one's homeland before seeking shelter in another country. If that is not possible then the asylum seeker is expected to ask for asylum in the first nation of safe passage. In this family's case that would be South Korea. If internal flight is possible but not chosen by the asylum seeker prior to looking for asylum elsewhere; or if internal flight is not an option and the asylum seeker arrives in a safe country but chooses not to ask for asylum there wishing to find asylum in a third country then the individual is guilty of what is called asylum shopping. Thus, the third nation is well within its right to refuse asylum to that person on the grounds that they had other avenues to find safety but opted not to follow them hoping to gain entry into another nation of choice. In other words they are trying to immigrate via a nation's asylum system. And those nation's with the most generous social benefits tend to be high on the list of the asylum shopper.

Third, granting asylum to these people is an insult to our ally and trading partner, South Korea. It implies South Korea is a nation of human rights abusers. The asylum seeking family claim they suffer from job discrimination and suspicions of being spies in South Korea because they are North Korean. But these aren't good enough grounds to grant anyone asylum in Canada. It's tantamount to French Canadians claiming refuge in the United States because Anglophone Canadians are mean to them.

Canada has been the target of waves of asylum shoppers before. There were Punjabi Sikhs in the late 1980s, Sri Lankans and Somalis all through the 1990s and into the 2000s, Mexicans in the early 2000s, and of late it has been Roma out of Europe. In all cases Canada was flooded with asylum claims from these and other countries. When word got back to the home country about the relative success of asylum claims suddenly, it seemed, everyone there was a refugee in need of Canada's protection. According to the article it appears this is what's happening with South Korea as claims from that nation have been steadily creeping up with news of acceptance rates of 50% and more. We need to put our foot down now and send a message before things get out of hand like it has several times before.

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Maybe It's The Immigration System That's Failing Canada.

Ever give that a thought?

In a Toronto Star op-ed piece the familiar argument is made that Canada is failing to utilize it's immigrants to expand the nation's economic horizons beyond the U.S. and European markets. The authors believe that as Canada's population diversifies due to immigration then so too should it's economic interests into the countries from whence these immigrants came. The assumption goes that a large and diverse, foreign born population is of great benefit to the country because, purportedly, immigrants will create or maintain economic ties to the lands of their birth. In doing so they will open doors to foreign markets where Canada had little to no exposure thus promoting job growth in the country. Why this hasn't happened yet to the satisfaction of the authors is baffling to them. For them, not only is it a failure on Canada's part to use this "comparative advantage" to its benefit but also an example of how Canada is failing it's immigrant population by wasting their skills and talent.

The op-ed piece is problematic on it's own because it offers no evidence to support what the authors believe should be happening - that immigrants expand economic opportunities into foreign markets for the receiving nation - would be happening in the first place. That it fails to do so is because it's difficult to substantiate that position. Were it true then the U.S economic expansion into China wouldn't be possible without the participation of a large Chinese population in the U.S.; the Chinese economic expansion into Africa is because of the participation of the large African population in China; and the Japanese economic expansion into Canada is because of the large population of Canadians in Japan.

That's because no strong evidence exists beyond the anecdotal and if any exists then I have yet to see it. Besides, if any existed I'm sure the authors would have cited it. Instead of hard data linking economic expansion with immigration to substantiate the authors' position we get assumptions; and like most arguments favouring the maintenance of the dysfunctional immigration system this one is heavily dependent on assumptions.

If Canada's large foreign born population is indeed a cause of increase in trading activity between Canada and their respective native countries it's doubtful it's a trading relationship that favours the Dominion. The more plausible scenario is that they have opened Canada as a market to import the exported cultural and agricultural goods of their home nations leading to a negative trade imbalance for us. I don't think importing another million more Chinese is going to make a dent in the $13 billion negative trade imbalance we have with China nor will importing millions more Asians have a positive effect on the some $48 billion negative trade imbalance we have with the Asia Pacific region as a whole.

Perhaps it's not an issue of Canada failing it's immigrants but of immigrants failing Canada. Perhaps the issue is that we are importing the wrong people and too many of them at that. It's a plausible argument but of course can't ever be considered for doing so would shine a light on Canada's problematic immigration system.

Having a large foreign born population in your country does no open overseas markets nor will employing a diverse workforce based on ethnicity, gender, race, or religion help expand your firm abroad. Having a good product or service that is desirable for consumption or can help generate positive cash flow for interested overseas parties does. They don't care who you have working for them. All they care about is if they like what you offer or you can help them make money.

But the op-ed piece isn't really concerned with any of this. It's actually a veiled plea to hire an immigrant over a Canadian using the language of international trade. Actually, it's a plea to hire non-whites over whites since white immigrants will only give us more of the same which is continued trade with the U.S. and Europe and to the authors this is trade Canada should be less reliant on. Put another way the authors are saying that non-whites make better employees than whites because the inherent magical powers of their particular race will open doors and create opportunities for your business overseas so hire them first and foremost. It's specious and racist reasoning but if this is what is being promoted to policy makers and business leaders it begs white Canadians to consider what financial interest they have in supporting the immigration system at all if they are to be relegated to the second tier of the hiring process because employers have embraced the dubious claims that diversity in one's workforce creates opportunities abroad.

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

So, What You're Saying Is We Need Another Head Tax?

Temporary foreign workers (TFWs).

What to do, what to do?

In today's Toronto Star, columnist and social justice advocate Carol Goar opines on the matter.

She has problems with the program as do the majority of Canadians; it's not far fetched to assume they wouldn't be.

So she offers some solutions. She suggest, rightly so, the cancellation of the provision that allows employers to pay TFWs 15% less than the going rate. She also suggests a requirement for employers "to submit a firm plan to replace their temporary foreign workers with Canadian workers over time" as well as "demand proof that companies are not using the program to outsource Canadian jobs."

She also suggests this: charge a $275 per worker fee for using the program.

Or in other words a head tax.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland made a similar suggestion to Sun News by offering the opinion that employers should be paying a 15% premium per TFW instead of being allowed to pay them 15% less than the going rate. He calls it a premium but a head tax is a head tax by any other name.

So, if offering the advice to charge someone a fee or premium per imported worker is now allowed in polite conversation then I ask what was so wrong with Canada charging a head tax on imported Chinese workers in the past? What's the difference between then and now?

How is a Chinese controlled mining company in B.C. importing Chinese workers to work for less pay than readily available Canadian workers different from the steady importation of Chinese labourers into B.C. some 100 years ago. The difference is a span of about 100 hundreds years. Aside from that there is none.

The response to the problem is also the same. Labour unions in B.C. tried through the court system to stop the arrival of the Chinese labours. In the left leaning Toronto Star it is suggested we charge a fee for every imported TFW.

What we have now is context and the context is the same. Like then what we have now is the steady importation of foreign workers into Canadian society that consequently is having a negative economic impact on the domestic workforce and incomes. In the past the government issued a head tax to deal with the problem and protect the livelihoods of Canadian workers. Now, near identical proposals are being made today to deal with the same problem by people left of the political spectrum no less!

With that said, was it wrong then for Canada to issue a head tax? No. Should the government have apologized for it? Definitely no! Imported Chinese workers were causing a problem then and the government of the time acted for the benefit of Canadians and dealt with it by issuing a head tax. Today it should do the same with TFWs.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Thanksgiving Day, October 14, 2013.

On this day let's collectively bow our heads and genuflect to the gods of the "New Canada" and recognize the continuous blessings and bounty each cohort of "new Canadians" bestows upon the people of this land for without their presence and "contribution" this country and we as a people would be lost and in a sorry, sad state.

Thanks for choosing Canada and contributing to our collective wealth and prosperity. We know your decision is selfless and your sacrifices are great to ensure that an already prosperous people remain prosperous even though I'm certain your countrymen back in your native lands need your skills and talents more than we do.

Thanks for the headaches; for being culturally belligerent, for the incessant demands for accommodation allowing you to integrate by not integrating; for the the long traffic jams and longer commute times; for more time away from friends, family, and leisure because who really wants that anyway?

Thanks for crowding our cityscapes and public transit; for subways we wouldn't need and for the tax increases to build them; for ugly urban sprawl neighbourhoods and for the destroyed rich farmlands and green spaces they now occupy; for the blight of condos that litter the skyline and an out of control, unaffordable housing market that puts us further and further into record levels of debt; for an affordable housing shortage; for making an affordable city unaffordable; a once livable city unlivable.

Thanks for oversupplying the labour market and for the downward pressure on incomes that adversely affects the most vulnerable of Canadians the most; for diversity hiring quotas that tell us race doesn't matter until it does.

Thanks for jobs you take, the ones Canadians won't do at that pay; thanks for being job creators, the jobs you create for yourself and your family. If it weren't for you then'd who run that corner store, nail salon, laundromat, or gas bar? And thanks for not doing your homework. If a bunch of Somalis can learn about how to scam Canada's refugee system without an internet connection how is it possible you couldn't have known that in Canada it will be tough for you to get a job in your filed with that degree from the Indian Institute of Technology.

Thanks for straining the health care system; for a doctor shortage by increasing patient supply; for putting it on the path to bankruptcy with your aged and sickly parents and with the inadequate amount of taxes you pay to support it. Deep down we really wanted a privatized system anyway.

Thanks for dodging taxes; for spending six months less a day outside Canada; for travelling to China with your Chinese passport even though you have dual citizenship or permanent residency. It's our pleasure to pay for the care of your elderly and education of your youth so you don't have to.

Thanks for removing billions of dollars from the Canadian economy to support foreign ones and to fund wars in lands we couldn't locate on a map. Why end the pain and suffering of a civil war in 5 years when you can keep it going for another 22? Besides, they look like so much fun its brightens our faces you bring them to our shores.

Thanks for the weakened social cohesion; thanks for not learning our language; thanks for the confusion on what a Canadian is to where the only thing binding us as a people now is the legal right to carry a Canadian passport and vote in elections. We thought we had a good idea of who we were but then you came along and told us we were wrong. Now we don't know who or what a Canadian is yet somehow everyone is a Canadian.

Thanks for treating the nation as just an economy to exploit and thinking of it as a shopping mall to satisfy your materialist fantasies; for helping it become that non-country we always knew it was.

Thanks for vote banks; for voting blocks; for ethnic vote pandering politics and politicians whose shortsighted personal ambitions blind them to the long-term consequences of their self-serving decisions; for an immigration system that better serves immigrants and immigrant communities over the needs of Canadians; for a weakened border and the loss of sovereignty; for the joke of an asylum system, the Singh decision, the costly IRB, and a fiscally burdensome immigration system that eats up tax dollars that should be invested into Canadian families instead.

Thanks for limiting our freedom of speech.

Thanks for colonizing Canada; for letting us better relate the country's indigenous peoples; for keeping the country's colonial history alive teaching us colonialism is great so long as you're the one doing it.

Thanks for strange holidays we don't recognize or celebrate, and thanks for black and orange day and Christmas "controversies" that are now as seasonal as gift giving, holiday trees, snow, and the arrival of Santa Clause.

Thanks for cultural festivals we don't go to and the over supply of ethnic restaurants many can't afford to eat at but at least your diverse culinary pallets gives us something positive to say about immigrants and multiculturalism because otherwise we're left scratching our heads.

Thanks for MDMA and THC, for khat and doda; for the Asian Organized Crime Task Force, the Tamil Task Force, and the Somali outreach unit; for the Malvern Crew and the Galloway Boys. It's nice to see immigrants add diversity to every aspect of Canadian society, including the crime stats.

And above all thanks for making us feel like strangers in our land; for being proud Canadians as you actively change the nation to reflect the one from whence you came.  We didn't invite you and don't really need you but you forced yourself upon us and now we have to put up with you. So thanks for the new Canada; something we didn't ask for nor do we really want but you're going to give it to us anyway whether we want it or not because it's not really about what we want is it? It's all about you.

Tuesday, 1 October 2013

If Canada's Youth Want A Future They Need To Be 'Red Pilled' On Immigration.

From the "when a better life for you means a worse life for us" files.

The Huffington Post reports:
Hovering around 16.9 per cent in 2012, Ontario's youth jobless rate “rivaled that of Michigan’s and was higher than Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin,” the CCPA said.
Supposedly economically weaker Quebec had a far lower youth jobless rate in 2012 — 13.7 per cent, the report found.{...}
The difference in unemployment rates between youth and adults in the province is the largest it’s ever been, the report found.{...}
Perhaps surprisingly, Toronto comes off particularly badly in the report. The percentage of youth with a job in Canada’s largest city is 43.5, the lowest of any region in the province. Toronto also has the largest gap between youth and adult employment rates, at 21.8 per cent, the report found.
“Toronto’s low employment rate comes from the withdrawal of 15–24 year olds from the labour force,” the report concludes.
The CCPA offers two possible reasons for why Ontario now has the worst youth job climate of any province outside the Maritimes: The “national economic shift away from manufacturing towards resource extraction,” and post-recession government austerity measures.
A third reason needs to be added: mass immigration. It's astounding the report didn't take this into account but the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is a left of center think-thank and are willfully ignorant to the adverse effects of Canada's mass immigration policy. In any case here's the CCPA report.

So here we are. Three decades of unrestrained mass immigration that was allegedly needed to keep the economy going, businesses running, and Canadians employed has helped contribute to an alarmingly high youth unemployment rate in the nation's most populace province as well as it's largest city. Guess we didn't see that coming did we? How could have we when we are constantly blinded by the assumed benefits of shoveling hordes of the world's masses into the labour supply. And the fact that Ontario and it's capital city Toronto - the largest city in Canada and fourth largest in North America - receives the lion's share of immigrants probably has nothing to do with it. But just think of all the great ethnic restaurants they open. Too bad you don't have a job or one with a future that pays a living wage otherwise you might be able to afford to eat at one once in a while.

This report brings into sharp relief the need to abandon all faith in the purported prophetic powers of labour market analysts and economists when setting immigration targets; the self proclaimed "experts." When they were foretelling the decline in labour market supply due to Canada's low birth rate and retiring baby boomer cohort the remedy prescribed was increased immigration quotas to stave off the crash and keep the economy going. If we didn't do it the sky was going to fall. Now it's 2013 and those jobs either disappeared or moved overseas to the countries we are importing immigrants from and the baby boomers aren't retiring as quickly as expected. So have immigration targets declined to reflect this unforeseen reality? Not in the least. They have in fact increased.

Immigrants are not a source of job growth. They grow labour supply. Investment from the public and private sectors are sources of job growth and when activity from both do not keep up to satisfy the growth in immigrant driven labour supply don't act shocked when you get high youth unemployment. And the decline in investment by Canadian businesses in their workforce by some 40% since 1993 doesn't help much either.

The levels of irony here are rich. A major reason immigrants move to Canada is not necessarily for a better life for themselves - many having to toil just over the poverty line in jobs below their skills-set - but for their kids and to provide for them a future their homeland couldn't deliver. It's not far-fetched to assume that many of those youth affected by the high youth unemployment numbers are the "first generation" Canadian born children of immigrants. The system their immigrant parents sought to benefit from is now working to the disadvantage of their children. While the importation of their immigrant parents may have displaced Canadians from the workforce now immigrants are displacing the Canadian born children of immigrants. In karmic fashion it's the system feeding on itself illustrating why immigrants have a vested interest in seeing immigration quotas reduced.

Another level of irony is that the age bracket of the unemployment figures - ages 15 to 24 - tend to be the most supportive of Canada's immigration system. No surprises here as these are the years one is most indoctrinated to the imposed feelgood, multicult propaganda taught in the public education system. They are rarely exposed to contrarian views but hopefully finding a job, choosing a place to live, and living in the real world will wake them up.

Of course immigration isn't solely to blame. There are other factors at work that collectively contributes to unemployment figures. But immigration isn't helping things. It's making things difficult if not worse for Canada's rising generation and we need to see to it that they have an inheritance in the land of their birth. We don't work and save so that our neighbour's children have a future at the expense of our own. That's dysfunctional. On their part Canada's youth need to take the red pill on immigration matters. It's not racist to demand decreases in immigration quotas. A better life for immigrants shouldn't be built on a worse life for us.

Saturday, 7 September 2013

Canada's Professional Crystal Ball Gazers Get It Wrong.

Again!
For the fourth time in seven months, the Canadian economy has shed jobs, pushing the jobless rate in July up to 7.2 per cent.
Statistics Canada reported Friday that the economy lost 39,400 jobs last month, pushing the unemployment rate up 0.1 percentage points to 7.2 per cent.
Much of the decline came from the public sector, where there were 74,000 fewer jobs. The private sector and the ranks of the self-employed both increased slightly.{...}
The poor jobs showing was a huge miss compared with the gain of 17,000 that economists were expecting.{...}
"Aside from providing great sport and serving as an eternal source of embarrassment for forecasters, do the wild gyrations in monthly jobs actually mean anything for the economy? Not really," BMO economist Doug Porter said of the data.
Yet still, when they make projections about the character of the labour market ten, fifteen, twenty years in advance we're supposed to take their word for it. I take the Weather Network's short-term forecasts with a grain of salt. I have little reason to believe what some overpaid, over-educated putz in an expensive business suit sitting in some office in a bank tower thinks the future will look like in ten years.

They are employed in these positions - and paid handsomely too - because they are able to convince people that they know what they're talking about when in fact they don't. People fear uncertainty and want to know what decisions to make today to affect a fortuitous outcome in the future. And they're willing to pay for it.

No one can predict the future. No one, yet the government has shaped immigration policy around what these occasionally-right-by-way-of-a-lucky-guess palm readers say about labour market trends. They are wrong often enough that we shouldn't be listening to them at all and it's a very real possibility that the future Canadian labour market they predict - one that necessitates the highest immigration intake quotas in the world - will not come to pass. If so we are in the process of stock piling a labour force of which supply exceeds demand and with this comes a bevy of social problems.

Another Drug Bust, Another Perp List That Reads Like A Chinatown Phonebook.

Like Canada's biker gangs are not enough of a problem.
Five people face numerous charges and pills with a street value of $40 million are now in the hands of police following what investigators are calling the largest methamphetamine bust in Ontario history
In July, officers from the province’s Asian Organized Crime Task Force — a specialized, multi-force crime-fighting unit — executed search warrants at a handful of homes and businesses in the GTA, Campbellford and Warkworth. 
The blitz resulted in the seizure of 120 kilos of pure methamphetamine, which investigators estimate would have produced around four million pills. {...} 
Charged with trafficking, production and possession offences are Jimmy Sut Jhing Ng, 55, and Sui Yuan Zhao, 39, of Campbellford, Kok King Chao, 49, and Joey Sui Hung Mo, 45, of Aurora, and 28-year-old Chun Kit Wong of Markham. 
According to a police source, the clandestine operation was something of a close-knit affair, involving two couples and an accomplice.
If it's pot it's typically Vietnamese. If it's methamphetamine it's typically Chinese.

This is not the first time nor will it be the last time a meth producing operation gets shut down and those arrested are mostly if not all of Asian decent.

I think it's safe to assume Asians dominate the Canadian illegal drug trade. If not, then they have at least secured for themselves an influential presence within it. That the provincial police of Ontario has something called an Asian Organized Crime Task Force tells us a lot.

Canada produces enough crime domestically already. We don't need to import it. Indeed, I often wonder what Canada's crime statistics would look like if the immigration system was more selective and imported a lot less people.

Monday, 26 August 2013

The Skills Shortage Lie.

If you were to ask me to give you a reason to be a Toronto Star subscriber I'd give you the name Carol Goar (or Thomas Walkom or David Olive for that matter). Not only do I find her sensible and being in agreement with her much of the time, I have also found that much of her writing on social issues affecting Canadians has an immigration reform angle - not of the kind she'd welcome I imagine since she does write from the left of the political spectrum - that brings into doubt the necessity of maintaining the highest immigrant intake levels on a per-capita basis in the world year after year.

Her latest commentary does that again. In it she reports on the findings of economist Don Drummond who has been a "skill shortage" skeptic for some time.

In her commentary she notes that "there were 6.3 unemployed people for every job vacancy"; that "there are no wage spikes in the skilled trades, information technology or scientific, professional and technical services" and "if Canada had skill shortages, employers would be paying a premium for workers in those fields"; and that "Ottawa does not have the ability to forecast labour needs accurately" because "its methods are flawed, its projections unreliable," according to Don Drummond.

Furthermore she notes that according to information provided in the 2013 federal budget approximately 4% of available jobs went unfilled leading to a discrepancy with StatsCan findings. Curious about the discrepancy Don Drummond inquired about the methodology of the finance department that led to that figure. He was stonewalled by the finance department on the grounds of confidentiality disallowing him from verifying Ottawa's claims. So he discounted them as unreliable since they can't be verified.

Another fact to ponder not mentioned in the article is that the Canadian labour force is the best educated workforce in the whole of the industrialized world. Per-capita Canadian workers are in possession of more post-secondary education and training than any where else and ever before. One can say Canada is producing more skilled workers than it's economy can handle. Put another way one can say the private sector is unable to accommodate a growing skilled labour force and so shifts blame elsewhere for fear of highlighting a failure of the system. Or, they simply lie because it's in their interest to do so because they want skilled workers at fire-sale prices. When you get the same spiel coming out of the United States - the country with arguably the best education system in the world - you start to tempt incredulity.

So the "skills shortage" myth isn't so much a myth but an outright lie.

The arguments favouring the perpetuation of the lie are familiar. The most common one is a disconnect between what the labour market needs and what Canadians are in training for much in the pursuit of the so-called "useless degree." I call bullsh*t on this. Anyone who has demonstrated some form of intellectual proficiency is employable. So why aren't they being employed? The answer is most likely the simplest one: Canadian businesses have excused themselves from training and retaining a workforce. They prefer a workforce where the individual bears all the risks and costs of training - with government subsidy - to be exploited for profit with little investment coming from the employer. In essence when it comes to investing in a workforce the private sector wants a free lunch. That being the case the business community only has itself to blame.

Another favourite is that there is a skills shortage in the trades (as if this excuse is enough to justify the steady importation of more than a quarter of a million foreigners onto Canadian soil permanently). However, if it weren't for the cond0 and housing building booms - projects of short-term employment engaged in the construction of buildings of no long-term production value and economic use aside from residential purposes - I doubt there'd be much of a skills trade shortage to cry about (but I'm sure they'd make it up anyway). Besides, if they were serious about addressing the skilled trades shortage then why do the Philippines, India, and China continue to occupy top spots as source countries for immigrants. You'd imagine that countries with building codes on par with Canada's would figure somewhere at the top but nope!

So why is the lie allowed to continue to influence government immigration policy when clearly it is a lie? The answer is powerful interests need it. Politicians need votes and to pander to immigrant/ethnic vote banks, the banks need more people to take out mortgages (and create bank accounts they can steal money from under the guise of "service fees") to pad bank profits and executive performance pay while fueling a housing boom they expect will continue 'til the second coming of Jesus. (Indeed, the housing market and the financial sector significantly influence GDP measurements to such an extent that to let either falter wouldn't look good to a government wishing to stay in power.) And most importantly the business community needs cheap skilled labour which is what they really mean when they say there is a skills shortage. When confronting an electorate that is growing increasingly weary of an immigration policy and it's long-term effects on the country you gotta tell 'em something so they will support a system that is more harmful to them than beneficial. And what are you going to tell someone to accept something that hurts them more than helps?

Sunday, 11 August 2013

David Suzuki For Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, And All That Other Sh*t.

It appears Chris Alexander has been appointed the new Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism instead of David Suzuki in the latest cabinet shuffle. Too bad. Going by recent comments made by Suzuki he may have been the better choice for the post.

I am very dismissive of the environmental movement in Canada because it cowardly refuses to address mass immigration as a root problem of their concerns. Environmentalists will see progress in their cause if they bothered themselves to pressure the government to reduce Canada's already too high immigrant intake. They have the arguments and public opinion is on their side.

I can only suspect the reason for their silence is that the membership of the environmental movement is primarily made up of the same ilk who are more used to throwing around accusations of xenophobia, bigotry, and racism instead of receiving them. They therefore understand full well that were they to publicly question the immigration system - the number of immigrants the country admits, their quality, and the alleged benefits of the system overall - it will leave them open to counter-productive ad-hominem attacks by those who seek to challenge them which in turn means fewer diner party invitations from the establishment elite they so desperately want to be apart of.

What they fail to understand is it is not racist or xenophobic or bigoted to criticize the immigration system. Why should it be? Is it because the vast majority of immigrants to Canada now are non-white and Canada is currently a white majority country and therefore criticism of the immigration system is inherently racist? So does this mean we cannot criticize it until whites are a minority population? And even then can we still? What if all immigration to Canada was white? Are arguments against the immigration system still racist? When can we criticize the immigration system if at all?

The issue is more so about quality of life than race and if it is demonstrable that the immigration system is more detrimental than beneficial to the lives of Canadians then it is our right to oppose it, slamming the border shut if need be. If immigrants are to be lauded for seeking a better life in Canada then it goes Canadians are justified in demanding changes to the immigration system if it means a better life for them. A better life for immigrants should not be built on a worse life for Canadians.

As for David Suzuki's comments there is no point in repeating what has already been said elsewhere. What is interesting to note is how both the left and right in this country responded.

From the right it was mostly scoffing from the Sun News crowd. This is not surprising. They do not like the man anyway and jump on anything he says or does (and some of it is justified I should add). I must say I found myself disappointed they engaged in the same behaviour one encounters with the left when they attack opponents of the immigration system. Sad, really.

From the left, near dead silence. Not at all surprising here either. I did a search at the Toronto Star - a paper that has more than once delivered up its pages to be a pulpit from which David Suzuki can preach - and found no reference to his interview in L'Express. Indeed, they published another sermon of his some two days later. No mention is made in that article about immigration.

And so that is how it goes in Canada concerning the non-existent debate about immigration. The right is just as prone to grandstanding as the left to show they are more pro-immigration than their political counterparts. And when inconvenient truths are mentioned by one of their own the left play hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Just pretend he did not say it and he did not say it. Better that than acknowledge the points he raises.

Lost in all of this is the opportunity to have a much wanted national discussion about immigration. One is long overdue and the rabble is getting restless.

Sunday, 14 July 2013

July 1, 2113.

So another Canada Day has come and gone, a day in which the national press entreats Canadians to the obligatory images of our much cherished (and cheapened) citizenship being doled out like prizes in McDonald's Happy Meal boxes to the newest batch of so-called "new Canadians;" a category of people for whom if a recipe existed on how to make one the instructions would state to let sit for no more than five years, no need to add water.

These images are typically taken at a swearing-in ceremony that is more perfunctory than a celebration and where attendance is not mandatory. It is an event that is about as welcoming to Canadians as the news of pregnancy is to a single mother on social assistance who can barely feed and clothe the children she already has. They're just more mouths to feed and we don't have the money and frankly we are getting tired of having to care for and care about their needs when ours are barely being met.

It was also when I realized it has been a while since I updated this blog. It is not that I am less opinionated on the matter it is just that I am admittedly a lazy blogger but since blogging is, so far, my only avenue to express myself about immigration matters and the attendant social transformations I reject, it is about time to get back to it.

So to get things started again let us pause and consider the brave new Canada the nation's establishment elites and their dysfunctional immigration system is going to give us whether we like it or not if things are allowed to continue without restraint or caution.

Canada's Established White Majority Population Will Be A Minority Population By Century's End.

Globally whites are a minority population. Whites constitute somewhere between 20-30% of the world's population and that share is on the decline. However whites do form the majority in several nation states but even there those numbers are in decline since these states have relaxed their border controls and opened their countries to masses of non-white immigrants. A likely consequence of this is that whites will become a minority group in lands where they once formed the majority. Whites are expected to become a minority in the U.S. mid-century, in the U.K. by 2060, and in Canada by the end of the century if not sooner. Consequently whites will be a minority race almost everywhere in the world.

The claim "race does not matter because it is a social construct" is made to assuage concern. This is the neutral and only acceptable position to take for to say that whites becoming a minority is a good thing implies there is something wrong with a white majority population in the first place, an implication that is inherently racist. To say that it is a bad thing demands a change in our immigration system to favour white immigration; a position that will immediately be deemed racist (yet the majority of immigrants to Canada now are non-white with nearly half of them coming from Asia alone is somehow not racist).

It is not a debate of whether it is good, bad, or neutral but one of if it is wanted. It cannot be stressed enough that no public consent was ever sought or given regarding the social, economic, and political changes immigration is bringing to the nation. Canadians are just expected to shut-up and put up with it (if you do not your are a racist). What is happening now in Canada - with multiculturalism as social policy and the radical shift in immigration patterns - was imposed upon the nation by government decree with no mandate ever given and encouraged by an out of touch, unelected, establishment elite.

But it has become clear to me that race matters. You can pretend it does not but it does. If race does not matter then if Canada were to change it's immigration system to accept majority white immigrants overall to maintain the racial balance then no one should care. There should be no accusations of racism in the system because skin colour does not matter. Some non-white immigration would still exist so who should care since race does not matter?

We know the immigration system will be accused of racism which is an admission that race matters. And so the only acceptable default position to take, it seems, to ensure there is no racism in the immigration system is to accept majority non-white immigration overall dooming the host white majority population to eventual minority status. This is like stacking the deck to ensure that whites in white majority Canada face an inevitable white minority future. Why this is not considered racist towards Canada's established white majority host society escapes me.

If race does not matter then why do whites in liberal Toronto, New York, Vancouver, and Los Angeles prefer overwhelmingly to live in white majority neighbourhoods? Why does Toronto and the surrounding area host some four Chinatowns with Markham, ON being 52% Chinese? Why have Punjabi Sikhs clustered in Brampton, ON and Surrey, B.C.? If race does not matter why do Canada's major political parties field candidates of a particular ethnic or racial background in electoral-ridings where the largest ethnic or racial group in that riding is that of the candidate's? If race does not matter then why do ethnic and racial groups incessantly bitch and moan over their perceived lack of representation in the media, the workforce, corporate boardrooms, cultural and educational institutions, and public office? Why do university applications and some job applications seek information on an applicant's racial status? If race does not matter then why did the majority of whites - both male and female - vote for Mitt Romney is the last U.S. Presidential election while the majority of blacks - both male and female - voted for Back Obama?

It is because race matters and speaking of race...

Good Bye Great White North, Hello Banal Brown North.

By this I mean Canada's racial demographic future is a brown skinned, brown eyed, black haired one. These are the racial characteristics of non-whites with skin tones ranging from near black found in those of African ancestry to an off-white tone found in the fairest of Asians. However, regardless of skin tone and racial background non-white eye colour is universally brown and hair colour is universally black.

Whites of European and Middle Eastern stock are the ones who exhibit real racial diversity. It is they who display a variety and mixture of skin tones, eye colour, and hair colour within their own racial group. White majority societies, white exclusive societies, are already racially diverse without the introduction of non-whites.

With Canada hellbent on ensuring that it's current white majority population becomes a minority in the future the racial diversity it boasts about now will become something of a joke. With specific racial characteristics aside most Canadians will have brown skin, brown eyes, and black hair. Not very racially diverse is it?

Expect the future "new Canada" to be a growth market for hair dyes, colour contacts, and skin bleaching creams because racially Canada will be a much more boring place than it ever was and everyone will get sick of having the same hair, eye, and skin colour as everyone else. Well, anyone who is not white that it is. Whites will be disliked for having what non-whites do not have: real racial diversity.

Speaking of racism...

Canada Will Become A Much More Racist Country.

Racism already exists in this country to a degree and it is expressed by all groups. No one is without blame. It is human nature and you will never eliminate it. It can be limited in its impact but we are undermining our ability to do so. With everyone a minority no one will give a damn about not offending anyone. People will be more frank about their perceptions, associations, and dealings with those of races other than themselves. Ethnic-enclaving will be as strong as ever. Social cohesion will be undermined. The nation will become ungovernable.

Speaking of which...

Canada Will Become Ungovernable.

Unfettered Asian immigration will turn British Colombia into a Quebec of the west coast. Asian languages (chiefly Mandarin and Punjabi) will become lingua franca in the province. It's cultural makeup will be rooted in Asia. Aside from being situated on the North American continent an Asian B.C. will have little in common with the rest of Canada. Without concessions from Ottawa it may seek secession.

Quebec may have seceded already seeing it no longer has a place in a Canada that even Canadians in the R.O.C (rest of Canada) cannot recognize or make sense of.

Federal, provincial, and local politics will all have a racial and ethnic component to it even though in the "new Canada" race is a social construct. Since everyone is a statistical minority they will pursue their self-interest through racial group solidarity since there is strength in numbers. Federally, provincially, and locally there will be parties and elected officials pandering to special interests be it religious, ethnic, or racial, or what have you. Minority governments and coalitions will become the norm. We can expect these to be short lived and elections to occur often.

More languages will become official languages as opportunistic politicians pander to the growing numbers of "new Canadians" who obstinately refuse to learn the language of the country. Canadians will no longer be united by language dealing another blow to social cohesion and national unity.

Canada's Foreign Policy Will Be Compromised.

Out of fear of offending particular ethnic and immigrant voting blocks - larger than they have ever been before - expect any foreign policy positions coming out of Ottawa to be watered down as to be ineffective. Due to this domestic demographic influence foreign powers can manipulate Ottawa to their advantage due to the sizable populations they have exported to Canada's shores and the colonies they have established here, nurtured by Canadian tax dollars under the guise of vote buying multiculturalism programs. Indeed, Canada may not have a foreign policy at all because Ottawa will be unable to formalize one. In effect, Canada will never be allowed to grow up and mature as a nation and Canadians will fail to become a distinct people. From out of the influence of the British Crown, to the economic and cultural dominance of the United States, to a multinational claim on the territory currently known as Canada the nation will just be a place where one has a job and shops at malls, which is pretty much what it is now.

Expect An Amnesty (or two).

Canada is already nursing a population of undocumented individuals who entered the country through various schemes. There is an estimated 350,000 TFWs (temporary foreign workers) in the country right now whose legal status is about to run out in the coming years. It is anticipated that many if not most will not leave the country and will go underground. Added onto this are the many who have overstayed their visas (student, visitor), failed refugee applicants, and those who entered the country illegally and it is quite possible the number of undocumented persons will exceed 500,000 individuals if not more. An amnesty will be called for and it just might happen because to find these people and execute deportation orders will be too costly and too time consuming to do so. Granting one will then send the message that breaking Canada's immigration laws pays and Canada will find itself in the same position years down the road. Rinse and repeat.

Canada Will Become A Country Of Fewer Freedoms.

For the "new Canada" to work certain liberties we now take for granted will have to be limited and policed if not outright removed. We see this already happening with our free speech guarantees, the very cornerstone of a healthy democracy. If we are willing to sacrifice our freedom of speech for a "new Canada" no one really wanted in the first place then what else will be sacrificed to make the "new Canada" work?

This is how Yugoslavia was able to function before the totalitarian regime that kept it together lost it's grip and the nation fell apart. And this is how Singapore is able to function as well. In order for the kind of multicultural society to work as imagined in the psyches of the nation's establishment elite a certain level of totalitarian rule will be necessary. And undoubtedly it will be those very same elites who will be calling the shots, or at least they expect to be. They are smarter than you and I and know what is best for us and the country so why should they not?

Say 'Bye-Bye' To The Environment and 'Hello' To Sprawling, Sardine Cities.

Forget the Keyston XL pipeline and the Alberta tar sands. They have nothing on the damage mass immigration is wrecking on the environment and will continue to do so into the future.

Despite appearances Canada is a largely an inhospitable place. This has to do with geography and weather. Put simply Canada is just one giant rock (the Canadian shield) situated next to an arctic desert (the tundra) that is under the cover of snow near six months of the year if not more. To live in such an environment requires the use of a lot of resources and mental fortitude.

Few people want to live in an environment like that. That is why some 80% of the Canadian population lives within 100 Km of the U.S. border.

And neither do immigrants. The vast majority of them sooner or later ends up in a Canadian city with Toronto getting the bulk of them. We can imagine what will happen as Canada chases a population of 100 million, most of it immigrant driven.

With a national population of 100 million it is reasonable to assume 20 million of those will reside in and around Toronto. Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal can see some 10 million each if not more. Ottawa and Edmonton can possibly see 5 million.

For the environment of southern Ontario and for a national food strategy this is apocalyptic. Only 5% of Canada's land is classified as arable land and the richest of it is in southern Ontario in and around Toronto. Yet, we insist on paving over this land with reckless abandon to construct urban sprawl dwellings to house immigrant driven population growth forever destroying this land for productive agricultural uses. We are eliminating the useful for the useless.

To protect this land then Toronto must build up and up and up. More condos and more high density living, fewer parks and green spaces. This city itself will become a high density dwelling with escalating cost of living expenses and the attendant stresses of living in such an urban environment. Toronto will become unlivable. But even if this strategy were employed urban sprawl cannot be stopped. Canada's arable land and it's ability to feed itself will be deemed less worthy causes in the service of building "new Canada."

Canada Will Finally Become The Third World County It Aspires To Be.

Two major characteristics of third world societies is a high level of foreign ownership of the economy and large wealth discrepancies. And Canada has both.

Of the G8 nations Canada's economy is the most foreign owned. Out of all industrial nations Canada's economy is among the most foreign owned and with the rush to sell off the nation's resources and companies to the highest foreign (Asian) bidders we might as well call ourselves an honorary member of the third world.

The gap between the rich and poor in the country continues to widen but this is not unique to Canada but is characteristic in much of the west.

What is saving Canada from third world status is national debt levels but who knows what will happen in 100 years from now.

Furthermore, in the absence of proper border controls the laws of diffusion will see that it happens. If Canada is cold and the world is hot were the world to pour into the country Canada's cold properties will gradually disappear and for a time make the country more pleasant as it becomes lukewarm. But as more and more of the world pours into the country Canada becomes less pleasant as it approaches the hot levels of the world pouring into. Eventually Canada's cold properties are reduced to trace levels in the new hot Canada. Likewise, those seeking to escape the hot world by seeking "a better life" in cold Canada will eventually see that those who followed them gradually turned the country into the place they were escaping from. In the long-term more people lose than would have otherwise been the case had proper border controls been in place to protect the standard of living of Canadians.

Were I to take a modern day example of what Canada will look like in the future then I have to pick Brazil. A country constituted of a mongrel population it is a land of rich national wealth that is not equally shared among the people but hoarded among the privileged few. It has large, sprawling, densely populated cities hosting luxurious neighbourhoods that are home to the wealthy and crime ridden, impoverished favelas that are home to everyone else. While Brazil is a country of much beauty and opportunity, for many Brazilians it is an economic and social disaster. It is not the country one intends to build but it appears to be the one Canada is building for itself which is a shame since we got off to a good start.

In Conclusion

I do understand this is all speculative and I do not expect what I wrote to come to pass (or at least I hope they don not). You cannot predict the future. Anything can happen to upset expected outcomes based on current trends. For instance a population crash in Asia - it too a possibility since the Asian economies of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and China have birth rates well below replacement levels - could see Asian immigration dry up in Canada as those economies try to retain their young and skilled from leaving and even compete among themselves for immigrants. But since I am willing to admit my predictions are overly pessimistic and speculative at best we should not let ourselves succumb to the overly optimistic and equally speculative expectations of the pro-immigration/pro-population growth lobby.

What is needed is critical analysis of the issue from those not invested in the immigration industry. We need to weigh what is wanted with what is needed and what we need is less and more selective immigration and I do feel this is also what is wanted among the majority of Canadians.