Thursday, 21 November 2019

Mass Immigration Will End Canada's Public Health Care System.

Canadians list healthcare as one of the key characteristics that define the nation yet I fear mass immigration will put an end to it.  This is because mass immigration is adding undue stress to the system.  This will, in time, force us to adopt a privatized system because it will no longer be affordable as a public expenditure.  There may be a semblance of of a public option but it will be a shell of its former self being so underfunded and inadequate that most will avoid it if they can.

How can I say this?

Getting objective data on the standard of Canada's health care system is hard to come by since many studies have an agenda to push and use specious methodology.  You can also find conflicting reports.  For instance in this ranking of national health care services the U.K. tops the list whereas in this ranking the U.K. ranks 19th.  Incidentally Canada ranks ninth out of eleven nations in the former yet doesn't even make the list in the latter.

The WHO purports to be an apolitical organization so we'll use its data since it's safe to assume it will be the most objective in its methodology.  According to the WHO Canada ranks 30th out of 191 nations in health care efficiency.  Topping the list is France which should raise some skepticism of rankings in general since the rankings mentioned earlier placed France 10th in one (and just below Canada) and 18th in the other.  For the sake of interest the U.S. placed 37th.  Nations of note that ranked higher than Canada are Malta (5), Oman (8), Colombia (22), Saudi Arabia (26), United Arab Emirates (27), and Morocco (29).

Bear in mind a low ranking doesn't necessarily mean terrible.  When the world's ten fastest runners compete in a race someone is going to come in tenth place even if the difference in placings is in nanoseconds.

So what do we have to go by?  Let's look at wait-times.  According to a Frasier Institute study "Canada's wait-times hit new record high, again" with Canadians expecting to wait an average of 20 weeks to see treatment by a specialist after referral.  According to the CBC Canadians' wait-time to see a doctor is longer than the international average (but the CBC assures us we're okay with that since we're still satisfied with the quality).  Furthermore emergency room wait-times in Canada continue to rise.  And another ranking by a group called The Commonwealth Fund cites wait-times as a deciding factor why it ranked Canada's health-care system dead last among a grouping of eleven nations.  Bear in mind wait-times are prioritized.  If you need urgent care you're going to get it but the less urgent your health-care needs are deemed by a professional the longer you're going to wait and the more there are in the queue the longer you're going to wait.

This is where mass immigration is taxing the system.  Canada's two most immigrant destined provinces, B.C. and Ontario, are two of the worst places in the country to be stuck in an ER.  B.C. reported an average wait-time of up to 8 hours in the ER whereas Ontarians were waiting an average of 16.8 hours in the ER.  For Canada, "hallway medicine" in now a thing.

Immigrants also add marginal costs to the system.  One such cost is the need for translation services on not only translators but a lot of paper and ink is wasted publishing healthcare information in a myriad of languages that all say the same thing.  This waste can be avoided if a working knowledge of an official language was requisite prior to arrival but the government has signaled it's not interested in instituting that as a requirement.

Another is pressuring the government to allow the importation of their elderly and sickly relatives into the country.

The solution to these problems is always to throw money at it but we throw a lot of money at it already.

Healthcare as a percentage of the national GDP has been following an increasing trend over the decades currently representing 11.6% of it making Canada one of the highest spenders on healthcare in the OECD.  This can be due to the ageing of the Canadian society as Canada's boomer generation enters its winter years but we've also been growing the population at the same time with mass immigration further compounding demand.

Healthcare spending is handled at the provincial level and is the single largest item on all provincial budgets consuming a national average of 38% of public spending.  In Quebec, healthcare consumes 34.3% of public spending and a whopping 42.3% of public spending in Ontario.  As healthcare expenses rise so too does its demand on provincial budgets consequently leaving less public money available to be spent elsewhere; that is, if the government wants to maintain the level of care the public is accustomed to while keeping spending under control.  That means cuts to some social programs and public sector initiatives or the government can run deficits and kick the problem down the road and let someone else worry about it.  Of course, the government can always raise taxes.

Another option is to delist previously funded procedures.  Canada doesn't have a totally universal healthcare system.  We do pay for certain things out of pocket or via an insurance scheme such as dental, optical, and pharmaceutical.  Some 30% of healthcare spending in the country is done in the private sector.  Delisting healthcare services allows the government to keep public spending under control without having to cut costs elsewhere, run deficits, or raise taxes.  But this is just offloading the cost of healthcare services onto the public that they previously paid for with their taxes which, in a sense, is a tax increase in a roundabout way.  It's also the death of the public healthcare system by a thousand delistings.

How many services can the government delist until it can't any longer?  Will it then move towards a public/private system with the government agreeing to pick up a portion of the tab of all services with the other funded by private means?  How is that not effectively a privatized system?  Continuously delisting services to address rising healthcare costs is a pathway to privatization and mass immigration is making that happen.

Rising healthcare costs as a portion of public spending isn't because healthcare services have become more expensive.  It's because of increasing demand made by the importation of masses of underperfoming immigrant cohorts who consume more in taxes than they contribute.  Mass immigration isn't the economic stimulant it's being made out to be.  Immigrants are attracted to prosperous societies, they don't prosper societies.  Well, they haven't prospered Ontario anyway; the province that sees most immigrant settlement.  More than half the residents of an immigrant heavy region of the province is considered "low income" by the United Way.  A study by an economist from the University of Calgary calculates the annual GDP per capita of the province is just USD$48,000 which is $1000 better than Kentucky and 12% better than West Virginia.

My solution to preserving Canada's public healthcare system is to severely cut immigration, make it more selective and restrictive, and ride out the "grey wave".  We should cut immigration by at least half; select for health, language skills and job skills; favouring applicants that are unmarried and be denied the prospect of importing extended family members.  Economic migration works but only 20% of immigrants enter Canada as economic migrants.  That means of 350,000 immigrants that are allowed to settle here only 70,000 were assessed by Canada's points based system.  The rest are either immediate family members, sponsored family members, and refugees.  This is where the public spending burden is coming from.  In short, we need to cut demand. 

It's worth noting Canada has seen the doctor per capita ratio reach a record high.  This is good news and may make a dent in wait-times but how was that ratio achieved?  Did we import these doctors?  If so that means another society is going without them and if they come from physician deprived parts of the world where their skills are in greater need than here how is encouraging their migration to Canada ethical?  We are guilty of poaching and the immigrant doctor, if from the developing world, should reassess why (s)he went into medicine in the first place.  Regardless, mass immigration can eat away at that ratio.  Cutting immigration and burdening the "grey wave" would not only greatly improve that ratio further in time but it would reduce wait-times and decrease demand (and therefore expenses) on the system.  Doctors will make less money but if money is why they chose medicine in the first place than they're in the wrong profession.

Famed economist Milton Friedman is quoted as saying "It's just so obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state" and he's right but this wasn't said in defense of the welfare state.  He was rabidly opposed to it and advocated for open borders migration.  Same can be said of a public healthcare system.  You can't have open borders and a public healthcare system because mass immigration will bankrupt it.  As Canadians it is our obligation to future generations to preserve and build upon what we inherited and we're failing to do that on many fronts and healthcare is one of them.  We are leaving them a worse future so that we can live in fleeting comfort in the present as a generation of spoiled, entitled Canadians give our country away, who have no right to do so, to a people who don't deserve it.

If you're still not convinced mass immigration is a threat to our public healthcare system I present exhibit B: the U.K.'s NHS.

Tuesday, 29 October 2019

Immigration by the Numbers.

I'd like to update this blog regularly by posting new content at least once a week.

Just sayin' I'd like to.

Anyhow in this post I'll defer to Stefan Molyneux to update you on Canada's current immigration numbers.  I don't doubt his figures but there are some I'd like to fact check myself.  For example he states immigrants in Canada collectively remit $40 billion dollars a year to their native countries according to World Bank data making Canada the highest remitting nation per capita in the world.  This is up from $26 billion just three years ago.  I didn't find any World Bank data to confirm that for myself but then again I didn't look very hard.  In any case I have little reason to doubt him.

He also uploaded a follow up video on the current state of Canada's economy which I think is pertinent given that immigrants, so we're told, are "key to Canada's prosperity and economic future."  If what Stefan says is true then immigrants haven't done s**t, so to speak, to improve Canada's economic outlook and prospects.  My impression is the Canadian economy is becoming increasing reliant on government shuffling money around to a disconcerting portion of the citizenry, and corporations I should add, becoming ever more reliant on government largess to exist in the country.  The rest have to assume worrisome debt loads just to maintain the appearance of a middle-class lifestyle that a typical family of four could have acquired with one bread winner just forty years ago.  In effect Canada is turning to immigration to float its mediocre economy by increasing its population by importing it.  These imports then help fluff the GDP numbers by assuming consumer debt and receiving government handouts and then spending it.  It's a monetarist approach to keep the economy going (while consequently tackling inflation by over supplying the labour market to keep wages and salaries stable) by increasing the money supply by importing people who not only bring money with them but are also reliant on debt and tax payer funded subsidies and benefits.  If that's where Canada's economy is at then it's not looking good but no one wants to hear it let alone talk about it.  This is Canada after all where everything is well managed and we have absolutely nothing to worry about whatsoever because "Canadian exceptionalism".  Just trust our ruling elites.  They have everything under control.

I'd also like to bring to your attention to the CanadaPoli YouTube channel.  It was founded and run by a man who ran for the PPC last election.  He updates regularly and his channel is an excellent source for current Canadian news along with commentary from someone right of center.  He has more than once brought to my attention news items of significance that have been largely ignored by Canada's incestuous left-leaning MSM press.  I highly recommend it.

Stefan Molyneux on immigration:

Stefan Molyneux on the Canada economy:

Tuesday, 24 September 2019

It's Only a Bad Thing When It Happens to My People: Hong Kong edition.

Did you know there are protests going on in Hong Kong right now or have you forgotten about it already?  The news cycle seems to have moved on like a moth in search of a brighter light perhaps waiting for Beijing to send in the tanks and entertain the world with Tiananmen 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Anyhow what triggered the protests was a move by Beijing to allow extradition from the semi-independent region of China.  Hong Kongers interpreted this as an infringement on their sovereignty but there’s more to it than that.  From the American Conservative we read:

“China has instituted an immigration scheme that allows 150 Mainlanders a day to migrate to Hong Kong and local officials have no power to vet or control who comes. Protesters say the program is being administered by the Chinese Communist Party in order to dilute Hong Kong identity and make the island more pro-Beijing.” {…} 
“Close to 1.5 million mainland Chinese immigrants have moved to the city since Hong Kong became part of China in 1997, and now make up about 20 percent of Hong Kong’s population. ‘It’s becoming very difficult,’ a protester said. ‘The high number of immigrants drains our public resources—from health care to public housing and education.’ 
“Thousands of pregnant women from mainland China have migrated to Hong Kong because it allowed their children to obtain permanent residency there—including access to public housing and free health care and education. “{…} 
“The rise in housing costs has also become an alarming problem, due in part to mainland Chinese elites gobbling up prime real estate. A staggering 44.7 percent of residents in Hong Kong live in public housing.”

Doesn’t that sound familiar?  But here’s what I want to focus on:

“Many Hongkongers also worry that mass immigration from mainland China risks threatening the region’s unique culture. ‘Mass immigration is a deliberate policy by the Chinese government to commit cultural genocide against Hong Kong,’ another protester charged. In 2017, Beijing mandated that Chinese history be compulsory for all children ages 12 to 14. One Hong Kong critic at the time called it a policy that ‘treats history teaching as an ideological weapon that could beat down the anti-Chinese sentiments for Hong Kong independence.’ 
“’The rationale is not pedagogical but patently political, i.e. to foster a blindingly patriotic, triumphalist sense of Chinese identity,’ wrote Henry Kwok in October 2017.”

Mind you the article gives us this assurance:

“However, in many cases, immigrants from mainland China have integrated. And those who have tend to support the anti-government protests. ‘I moved to Hong Kong, so I will definitely vote against the Communist Party,’ said one of the protesters, adding, ‘if not, why even emigrate in the first place?’ The issue Hongkongers have with mainland Chinese immigrants isn’t ethnocentrism, but rather immigration used as a tool to undermine their autonomy.”

That's nice to know.

From Quartz we read:

“That hasn’t been easy since the outbreak of the so-called Umbrella Movement, which has paralyzed the city and dominated conversations between Gao and his friends for over a month. The pro-democracy demonstrations, triggered by China’s limits on the city’s first direct elections in 2017, carry a hidden edge that most protesters and supporters have tried to downplay: the deep and growing resentment toward millions of mainland Chinese immigrants and tourists, seen by many Hong Kongers as invaders who are irrevocably changing their city for the worse.”

From Mercatornet we read this headline: “Hong Kong’s crisis is not just about democracy. It’s also about demography”

I haven’t seen any mention of this aspect of the Hong Kong protests in the mainstream Western press but I’m sure if I look hard enough I might find something; a fleeting blurb buried deep in an article maybe.  The closest I got is this NY Times piece but even then I’m grasping here.

In any case there are two things we can take away from this.
One is Chinese gonna Chinese.
Second is Hong Kongers are massive hypocrites.

Hong Kongers were instrumental in triggering the rapid Asianisation of Vancouver.  They are the inspiration of the unofficial (and pejorative) nickname of the city, “Hongcouver.”
The influx began in the 1970s, picked up pace in the 1980s, and accelerated the closer China got to assuming possession of the territory from Britain in 1997.  They didn’t come here for freedom or democracy and all that stuff.  Nobody does.  They used Canada as a place to park their assets from the grubby hands of the Mandarin speaking Han Chinese in Beijing initiating a culture of real estate speculation in Vancouver and the consequential cost of living increases which continues to this day only with rich Mainland Chinese taking over what Hong Kongers started.
And, like an invasive weed, this Asianisation is spreading to other major Canadian cities. 

Hong Kongers were “Canadians of convenience” before it was a thing.  Canadian citizenship was an insurance policy to them and they promptly returned to Hong Kong when uncertainty over how Beijing was going to treat the territory abated post 1997.  (Despite their claimed differences there is one thing Hong Kongers certainly share with their Mainland cousins:  they’re both allergic to paying Canadian taxes but are addicted to using the services those taxes pay for.)  There is an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 “Canadians” living in Hong Kong and now that uncertainty has returned to the island it appears they’re going to make an insurance claim and expect Canada to save their opportunistic, parasitic asses yet again.

I support the Hong Kong protesters but only ‘cause I know if they were to fail a deluge of Hong Kong “refugees” would poor into Vancouver and Toronto and do unto those cities what Hong Kongers hate Mainlanders are doing to theirs but such hypocrisy from immigrants shouldn’t surprise us anymore.  If there’s one thing immigrants have taught us is this: colonialism is a great thing as long as you’re the one doing it.  Or put another way it’s only a bad thing when it happens to my people.

Friday, 6 September 2019

They Have To Go Back! (The Black Guy Said It, Not Me!)

Cardinal Robert Sarah is a prelate in the Catholic Church and the Vatican's chief liturgist.  He hails from Guinea which is a country located in West Africa.

And yes he's black.

He's critical of the socially fashionable causes high ranks in the Church have adopted and one in particular is mass migration whose bandwagon even Pope Benedict XVI has jumped on.

Prompted by the release of a new book he's published the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles sought an interview with him wherein he discusses several topics one being migration.  Here's what he said:
"All migrants who arrive in Europe are penniless, without work, without dignity. ... This is what the Church wants? The Church cannot cooperate with this new form of slavery that has become mass migration. 
"If the West continues in this fatal way," Cdl. Sarah warned, "there is a great risk that, due to a lack of birth, it will disappear, invaded by foreigners, just as Rome was invaded by barbarians. [emphasis added]
"It is better to help people flourish in their culture than to encourage them to come to a Europe in full decadence," the Guinean cardinal opined. "It is a false exegesis to use the Word of God to promote migration." [emphasis added]
This echoes sentiments expressed by the Dalai Lama who pretty much said the same thing.

And let's throw David Suzuki in the mix because why not?

So should we dismiss these men as racists?  I'd like to see someone try that.

Let's ignore the colour of their skin and focus on what they've said and you'll see they have a point and the overall point is this: mass migration does more harm that good.  It's detrimental to the environment, it's economically detrimental to large segments of the receiving society, it's detrimental to the source countries who lose valuable human capital, it's disruptive and destabilizing.  Short-term benefits might be realized in the guise of GDP metrics and bank share prices but long-term consequences are rarely if ever appreciated; the most heinous of them being the complete loss of nation through never ending invasion migration.

It truly is better to help people flourish in their culture than to encourage them to come to the West especially when it's in "full decadence".  These people need to go back and stay there and fix their countries because if they're not going to do it then no one will and invasion migration will never stop and the countries we hold dear to us; the ones we've ever known; the ones we were born in; that were built up by our ancestors, by our people; that we inherited and are obligated to preserve, to grow, to prosper, to pass on to future generations and be remembered by them will be gone forever; extinguished, given away freely by a people who had no right to do so to a people who did nothing to deserve it except walk off an airplane.

Sunday, 25 August 2019

It’s Only a Bad Thing When It Happens to My People: Kashmiris in Canada and the Hypocrisy of the Colonizing Immigrant.

I’m confident in my assumption that the demographic changes immigrants are imposing on Canadian society wouldn’t be tolerated by them were it happening to them “back home” in their native lands and Kashmiris in Canada exemplify that mindset.

There was this thing called Article 370 in the Indian constitution that gave the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir autonomous status in all areas of political life except for communications, defense, and foreign affairs.  And as of August 5 of this year Article 370 no longer exists having been abrogated by the Modi government effectively reducing the once autonomous Indian state into the two separate territories subject to the overriding governance of New Delhi.

The repealing of Article 370 has raised the ire of Kashmiris in India and abroad over concerns that the loss of autonomy would invite demographic changes to the region unwanted by the local population.  From the linked Global News piece:

Kashmiris, who identify as a distinct Indigenous society, fear India’s move will alter the region’s demographics and cultural identity [emphasis added]. India said its decision to revoke Kashmir’s special constitutional status and downgrade it from statehood to a territory would free it from separatism.
You see Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority territory in India and Kashmiris, who are mostly Muslim, regard themselves as the indigenous people of the region having obtained special rights in the Indian Constitution to secure and preserve their majority status.  Article 35A of Article 370 prevented anyone foreign – which included other Indians – from owning property in Jammu and Kashmir ostensibly to prevent them from permanently living there and overwhelming the local population consequently reducing Kashmiris to a powerless minority.  It’s a law imposed for the sake of self-preservation by a people who want to secure their existence and a future for their children.  The repealing of Article 370 eliminates that law allowing anyone outside the region to now possess property in Jammu and Kashmir and reside there permanently.

Kashmiris in Canada seem to have a problem with that.  While this Global piece focuses on the concerns of Kashmiris unable to contact relatives in Kashmir due to a lockdown this one Kashmiri academic at Wilfred Laurier makes clear that it’s about preserving the Kashmiri ethnostate:

“Pandit, an academic at Wilfrid Laurier University, has written to Freeland demanding four actions in particular. First, she wants Canada to push India to end the lockdown and backtrack on the removal of Article 370. She is calling on the Canadian government to condemn ethnic and religious discrimination in India as well. 
Lastly, Pandit says she hopes Canada will push in the United Nations for Kashmir to be given the right to self-determination.”

The call for a reinstatement of Article 370 is a call for the reinstatement of what are essentially xenophobic and racist laws written and enforced for the sole purpose of preserving a Muslim Kashmiri majority ethnostate in Jammu and Kashmir.  And I should emphasize that this call is being made by a Kashmiri in Canada, indeed all Kashmiris in Canada, who I’m certain would object if Canada sought to enact identical laws with the similar goal of keeping Canada majority white.   They’re only in Canada because of a grand project that was undemocratically imposed upon the country’s European host majority society that will, in time, reduce them to a powerless minority in the country of their creation but I don’t think people like Pandit care about that.  It’s only happening to white Canadians in their native country after all and Pandit's contributing to it and benefiting from it so it's no big deal.  It only matters when it happens to her people in her native land.

Kashmiris in Canada want Canada to do something.  Like what exactly?  Lend support to a once autonomous Indian state that had xenophobic and racist laws to preserve its demographic majority?  Why don’t we lend support to Génération Identitaire while we’re at it?

Modi is a Hindu nationalist and I wouldn’t put it past him that this was done to encourage the free movement of India’s Hindu majority into Kashmir to overwhelm its Muslim majority population and to further strengthen Hinduisms dominance in the Asian subcontinent particularly in a region that is also claimed and disputed by India’s neighbour and rival, Pakistan.  Fears of secession by Kashmir haunt New Delhi and a Hindu majority there loyal to India would put to rest any uncertainty.
But if that happens then I say so what?  What makes Kashmir so special that it should be protected from the free movement of people?  Who cares if a flood of "foreigners" move into the region forever altering the demographics by reducing the indigenous Muslim Kashmiris to a powerless minority?  Diversity is our strength, etc.  But if Kashmiris are opposed to the loss of land, the loss of culture, the loss of power and place in a society of their creation, the loss of their history, the loss of their identity, the surrendering of their future to a mass intrusion of an alien people who are not native to the region nor of a founding stock then I say welcome to my world.  We should have coffee some time.
The lack of self-awareness by these Kashmiri protesters here in Canada is so typical of immigrants and Canadian citizens of non-founding stock.  Their ethnic allegiance blinds them to the reality that what they fear may happen to their people in Kashmir through the repealing of Article 370 is exactly what they are doing to the people of Canada by being present here and maintaining a permanent presence here; by being willing participants, active agents, cheerleaders and beneficiaries in the re-colonization of Canada through mass third-world immigration.   But it’s like I said before and will say and say again: colonialism is great so long as you’re the one doing it.

Thursday, 1 August 2019

Won't Someone Think Of The Mattresses!!!???

I should probably update this blog more often than I should if only to remind the only reader I have, if even that, that I haven’t given up the fight and that proper immigration reform is still a crusade of mine even though I wish it wasn’t.  So I’ll take this hilarious Tarek Fatah column in the Toronto Sun as a reason to update it.  Seriously, the column is so dumb in its reasoning how could I ignore it?

The crux of the column is that we should stomp out “immigrant bashing” because without immigrants mattress sales will take a beating.

To those who are convinced Canada should shut its doors to immigrants, imagine for a moment the scenario in just two sectors of the Canadian economy if immigrants went on a strike and refused to come to Canada in 2020.
  1. 200,000 fewer mattresses will be sold along with countless unsold pillows and bedsheets.

Oh, and pillow and bed sheet sales naturally.  Can't leave that out.

In fact his whole argument seems focused on the economics of housing and related industries; house wares, furnishing, etc.; which feeds my suspicions that immigration is being used to prop up the housing market since it’s the only thing driving the Canadian economy at the moment.

He follows the economist’s line of reasoning that a forever growing consumer base is good for the economy and by implication good for everyone.  Therefore just dump people into your economy and everything will work out fine.  If only it were that simple.

Much of the consumer demands these immigrants make are for goods made elsewhere - mostly in poverty wage countries like the ones they come from - by tax dodging, largely U.S. based, transnational corporations and the jobs immigrants' consumer demands create in Canada are mostly low wage precarious jobs in the retail sector.  A growing domestic consumer base only made sense when international trade was less globalized and the means of production was local.

He talks of the tax contributions immigrants make to the public coffers but fails to mention immigrants also consume tax payer funded goods and services such as health care, infrastructure, and public transportation.  We wouldn’t have to worry about the loss in tax revenue if the immigrant weren’t here to have that revenue be spent on.  In fact, it appears immigrants don’t even pay enough in taxes to cover the costs of them being here
He says:

According to the financial management magazine Money Sense, it costs over $250,000 to raise a single Canadian 18-year-old adult “consumer” who drives our economy. Shouldn’t Canada pay for this immigrant? Or at the least say thank you?

At least that’s money that was spent in Canada to raise that child.  Immigrants have a tendency to send that money “back home”.

And lastly:

How many of you realize that under one category of “skilled immigrants,” a family of four needs to bring with them a bank draft of $23,542 on landing in Canada. Imagine if this family has to put up with slogans of “welfare cheats” (as was heard in one Mississauga political rally recently).

That’s all?  It should be at least $50,000.  And that’s for those who bothered to come to Canada the legal way under an economic classification.  As a refugee you don’t need squat.

One of the dire “sky is falling” consequences Fatah points out is that rents will fall and enter into a downward spiral.  I don’t see how that’s a problem.  How can an increase in more affordable housing be a concern?  Unless, of course, there’s a downside I’m not seeing but he’s essentially admitting here immigrants are directly contributing to rising housing costs which leads to higher cost of living expenses which leads to less disposable income available for a consumer driven economy to thrive on.  And we don’t fully appreciate how much an influence immigrants have on wages and real incomes.  If immigrants do have a measurable negative effect, no matter how small, on wages and incomes then coupled with inflation that’s even less disposable income available to be spent in a consumer based economy.  There may be more consumers in the market but we all have less money to spend and are therefore worse off.  No wonder Canadians are at record levels of household debt.

I really find it cute having a Pakistani immigrant tells us we need, essentially, more Pakistani immigrants so our country doesn’t turn into Pakistan.  Most of the immigrants coming to Canada are third-world immigrants who are fleeing the failed societies they made for themselves yet we’re supposed to believe them coming here is the key to our prosperity and long-term economic viability.  Funny, isn’t it, how they will prosper Canada but can’t do a damn thing to prosper their native lands?

If what I do here can be construed as “immigrant bashing” then I’m going to bash away.  I’m not going to silently sit by as I watch this nation be given away by a people who have no right to do so to a people who don’t deserve it all for the sake of fluffing a dubious metric like the GDP.  If the people coming here couldn’t do a thing to help prosper their countries then they’re not going to do much for us either and that alone should be enough to disallow them from immigrating.  It's really just charity then now isn't it?

Saturday, 15 June 2019

Even Nature Says You Don't Belong Here.

Vitamin D deficiency is apparently a thing among non-whites in northern climes.

Canadian doctors are urging their dark skinned patients to take vitamin D supplements.

How I read this is that it's nature's way of saying you don't belong here much like whites have no business in sun soaked climates.  There's a genetic reason why white nations dominate the list of countries with the highest rates of skin cancer.

But whites can offset the risk of skin cancer by limiting their exposure to the sun.  Non-whites, on the other hand, don't have it that easy.  It gets cold up here in the north necessitating the need to cover up for most of the year and also the days get short reducing one's exposure to the sun.  When you're already genetically disadvantaged to the natural production of vitamin D due to a higher melanin pigmentation covering up just makes it more difficult for your body to naturally produce it.  You can take supplements but the body is much more efficient at producing it naturally and in much larger amounts through the synthesis of UV B rays.  Whites are designed to live in the north.  Non-whites are not.  For non-whites, immigrating here, or anywhere up north, is a health risk.

This is just proof that race exists and that there are differences among them but we already know that.  We just don't care to admit it openly.  How else are the races different?  If some racial groups are less intelligent than others, either by design or evolution, what future does your nation have when you choose to ignore that and allow it to be overwhelmed by lower IQ populations?  I know it's a sensitive topic but ignoring it will have grave consequences not for the county but for humanity as a whole.  I think it will lead us to a new dark ages.

Saturday, 30 March 2019

Enough With The Third-World Immigrants Already! They Didn't Prosper Their Countries and They Won't Prosper Ours.

Canada's imbecilic PM appointed a Somali refugee with a law degree from the University of Ottawa to Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship and it's going along as well as you'd expect it.

When I first read of his appointment my hope sank to new depths it's now finding undiscovered life forms in the deepest parts of the Pacific Ocean.  It’s not like he’s the latest in a long line of illustrious and well reasoned men and women rationally guiding the demographic future of this country.  His predecessor was a former bank shill who came off as one third Jim Lahey, one third Mr. Magoo, and one third that mayor from Jaws.  He characteristically dismissed any legitimate concern of the immigration system with a flippant wave of the hand while carelessly increasing immigration quotas and that seems to be what the minister for immigration’s job is nowadays;  just increase immigration quotas and call it a day.  No consideration of whether we need more immigrants at all, no consideration of the social consequences of mass immigration, no consultation of the people sought, no forethought on technology’s impact on the labour market, no real work whatsoever.  You just show up to the office, increase the numbers, and spend the rest of your time warming a seat in Parliament with an occasional visit to an ethnic folk festival if only to go outside to get some fresh air.  

Indeed, the position is more liaison officer of the sitting government to the country’s kingmaker immigrant/ethnic vote banks than it is a cabinet minister shaping policy.  From Barbara McDougall to Ahmed Hussen; a long line of pension chasing mediocrities whose only accomplishment in office is ensuring the demographic replacement of the founding peoples of this country (but don’t call it a genocide) and the sustained theft of "stolen native land."  

But if you insist on shoveling in as many people as you can into the country from anywhere in the world are the people from the third world the ones to choose from?  Since the internet loves its listicles I present to you my list of reasons why Canada should stop immigration from the third world.

1. They’re From The Third World.

The people make the country, the country does not make the people and the third-world is the third-world because it’s full of third-world people.  Somalia is Somalia because it’s full of Somalis.  The Philippines is the Philippines because it’s full of Filipinos.  Mexico is Mexico because it’s full of Mexicans.  And so on.  “You will know them by their fruits” and their fruits are the societies they made for themselves.
European colonialism is often blamed for their lack of economic advancement but that can only take you so far and, besides, it’s been so long now you’re just making excuses for their failings.  Even so colonialism did bring modernity and functional government along with it which some utilized to their benefit post-colonialism while others let it rot.  For those of the later it says a lot about them as a people.  And we’re bringing them here in large numbers.
When you import the third-world the third-world is what you’ll get.  Magic-dirt thinking is of the liberal, naïve, idealistic mind convinced that someone will have their third-world essence exorcised from their being simply by having two feet planted on Western territory.  It’s nonsense.  

Genetic factors play a determinant role in shaping us as individuals and collectively as a people and it is apparent large swaths of humanity find themselves swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool.  This is why it doesn’t matter where you were born.  A Somali born in Canada is no different than a Somali born in Somalia.  A bundle of genes doesn’t behave differently because of what piece of land it was pooped out on.  Whether or not you believe in IQ as a valid metric of cognitive ability it’s clear some people are smarter than others and there are genetic reasons for it.  We’re not all equal.  

The mass importation of the third-world into Western civilization doesn’t enrich it and raise it up but brings it down to lower levels in an equalizing effect like when a gust of cold air rushes in and makes uncomfortable a once comfortably warm room.  And considering it is Western civilization that is propelling humanity forward diluting it with third-world populations will not only retard the progress of Western societies, if it doesn’t destroy it outright, it will take the rest of humanity with it.

2. We’re Poaching.

More Canadians move to the U.S. than Americans move north.  It’s a long established phenomenon where only a couple of times in history has that not been the case.  The reason is obvious.  By most metrics the U.S. is a better country than Canada specifically the U.S. offers a greater array of economic opportunities due to its highly diversified economy.  You can tell the level of a Canadian’s success by whether or not he lives here or in the U.S. since the most successful of Canadians tend to live in America.  It truly is the land of opportunity and a magnet for top Canadian talent causing many to lament of a “brain drain.”  But fear not.  What we lose to the U.S. we replace with immigrants not from the U.S., or Britain, or France, or Germany, or Australia, or Japan, for that matter, but immigrants from…the third world.

If the “brain drain” to the U.S. is cause for concern on how it affects the Canadian economy and its ability to compete internationally then Canada is, in practice, exercising its own “brain drain” of the third world and undermining its ability to develop its economies and ability to compete internationally.   We’re hypocrites to complain.  And we’re poaching.  In fact Canada has been singled out by WHO for doing just that.

The third-world needs its talented people more than we need them and oftentimes immigrating to Canada is career suicide.  Stories of “I was an MD in my country and now I’m a cabbie in Canada” are so commonplace now they deserve their own heritage minute.

To ameliorate this wasteful spending of human capital it is suggested Canada expedites the recognition of their professional bona fides to get them quickly engaged in the Canadian labour market but I have a better idea.  How about they stay home and build their countries instead?  A third world education is not on par with Western standards leading many to engage in multiple years of additional training in Canada just catch up.  But imagine what they could accomplish for their native lands had they stayed there or returned with the skills upgrade.  Here they’re just banalities but “back home” they can make a difference which leads me to my next point.

3. Because The Developing World Will Always Remain The Developing World.

The third world is the third world because the people of the third world can’t be bothered to do anything about it.  They just seem to accept it for what it is with a shrug of the shoulders.  But why should they do anything about it at all?  All they have to do is walk off a plane in some Western nation and suddenly their circumstances have changed for the better.  

What they fail to appreciate is that high standard of living, the one they want to obtain instantly from walking off a plane (or illegally crossing aborder) came about through effort, struggle, and sacrifice over generations.  If the developing world wants to get out of the developing phase and into the developed part it’s going to have to make the same effort, struggle, and sacrifice but no one in the third world has the patience for that.  Like impatient demanding children they want it now!  Also it’s too hard.  They want to come to the West to obtain instantaneously the society they can’t be bothered to build for themselves “back home.”

If we close the border to third world immigrants then they’ll be forced to confront the unpleasantness of their societies and be forced to do something about it that future generations can benefit from.  As long as the West allows itself to be open to third world immigration then few, if any, in the third world will be incentivized to make the changes in their countries to correct the conditions that compel them to want to leave in the first place leaving the developing world forever in the state of being the developing world.  Consider closing the borders to them to be an act of tough love.

4. If They Can’t Prosper Their Countries Then They Won’t Prosper Ours.

If third world immigrants were worth a damn then their native countries wouldn’t be in the mess that they are in.  But they are.  Why is that?  It’s because they’re third-worlders and need to go abroad to obtain another’s prosperous society since they can’t create one for themselves.

It’s laughable to hear third world immigrants talk of how they make a contribution to Canada as if the country would fall apart without their help.  To this I say “Look around.  Does it look like we need your help?”  Canada was getting along fine before they arrived and would still do so if they weren’t here.  But you know who could use their contribution?  Their people back in their home countries!

If third world immigrants prospered societies then why is Peel Region so poor?  To think third world immigration will not only maintain the prosperity that exists here but also grow it is borderline lunacy and if you do think so there’s a room at CAMH that’s feeling lonely right now without you.

5. It Makes Third World Governments Lazy.

Some CDN$24 billion is removed from the Canadian economy each year in the form of remittances.  This is money sent abroad to add liquidity to third world economies.  (And this is how third world immigrants contribute to the Canadian economy; by taking money out of it but this isn’t the real problem here.)  This nurtures remittance dependency for third world governments making them lazy to crafting policy that would encourage domestic job growth and long-term sustainable development to tackle poverty reduction.
One of the main exports of the Philippines is her people because Manila has become quite comfortable leaving job creation duties to other countries creating a remittance dependant economy.  Even China and India experience heavy inflows of remittances making the three Asian countries the top three largest recipients of remittance money in the world.  (Incidentally they’re also the top three source nations of immigrants to Canada.)  Mind you as a percentage of GDP they’re not as bad as Tonga, Kyrgyzstan, or Tajikistan but that isn’t saying a lot.
There are several problems with having a remittance dependant economy but chief among them is there is little evidence to suggest it positively contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction.  The primary benefits of remittances are the people receiving them. It’s not a long-term strategy for sustainable economic prosperity and by allowing third-world immigration we’re just enabling this dependency.

6. Even They Don’t Want To Do The Jobs Canadians Don’t Want To Do.

To say immigrants do the jobs “people X” don’t want to do insults two groups of people; one intentionally the other unintentionally.

The intentional group are the working class schmucks who experience the most adverse of “benefits” mass immigration brings.  It’s meant to shame them into accepting terrible jobs that don’t pay a living wage by a people of better upbringing who are so well connected from birth that if they ever found themselves doing “the jobs Canadians don’t want to do” it would mean they f**ked up so badly in life no one would risk reputation by setting them up with even the most measly do nothing, overpaid, public sector sinecure.

The unintentional group is the immigrants themselves since it presupposes they’re good for little else.
But even third world immigrants don’t want to do those jobs.

If you’re going to be poor in life then it’s best to be poor in a developed nation like Canada but being poor here isn’t much fun.  Third world immigrants didn’t come to Canada for the weather, or culture, or cuisine, or anything definitively Canadian really, and they definitely didn’t come to Canada to be poor even by first world standards.  They came to Canada to shop in its malls (Canada, to them, is just a mall and to be a Canadian is to be a shopper) but it’s hard to do so by “doing a job Canadians don’t want to do.”  If the high turnover rate of imported nannies tells us anything it’s just that: third world immigrants don’t want to do the jobs Canadians don’t want to do either.

7. They Contribute To Climate Change.

Canada has one of the highest carbon footprints per capita in the world.  No matter what ranking you look at Canada consistently lists high as one of the most polluting countries in the world on a per capita basis.  This is because Canada is a sparsely populated northern country of mostly inhospitable terrain that experiences the hottest of hot and the coldest of cold weather.  If the government were serious about combating climate change it would look at stabilizing the population, perhaps allow it to decline, but it isn’t.  It wants to increase the population mostly through mass third-world immigration while increasing our cost of living through an ineffective carbon tax; a carbon tax, I should add, whose efficacy would be frustrated by the negating effects immigrant driven population growth would have on any realized carbon reductions.  

How much more of a polluter will Canada be with a population of 100 million?   A carbon tax and mass immigration work at cross purposes.

Most of the immigrants we import come from the third world where they have lower carbon footprints.  China, for example, is a top global polluter but due to its large population the average Chinese national in China has a lower carbon footprint than the average Canadian.  Their carbon footprint more than doubles, triples, quadruples when they come to Canada to reside here permanently.  Canada would be fighting climate change if it discouraged third-world immigration and left those people to remain in the third-world.


Third-world immigrants need to stay home and fix their s**t and Canada would be wise to deny them residency until they do so.  They’ve proven themselves unfit for immigration because if they couldn’t do anything for themselves in their native countries, and for their native countries, then they’re not going to do anything for us.  They didn’t come to Canada to solve our problems, they came to Canada to have Canada solve theirs.  The third-world is the third-world because of the people of the third-world and by bringing them here you’re inviting what makes the third-world with them.  There is no benefit to be had, not real ones anyway, by Canada in allowing mass sustained third-world immigration and if there are any benefits they’re mostly novel, superficial, or fleeting mostly being eaten up by the immigrants themselves.  Third-worlders need to stay where they are and fix their countries, not come here and colonize mine.  Had they collectively invested the effort and resources they expend immigrating to the West into their native lands instead then perhaps they could affect positive change there and direct their countries to a brighter more prosperous future so that future generations wouldn’t feel compelled to move abroad at all.

Sunday, 25 February 2018

Diasporas Don’t Improve Trade Relations So Stop Saying They Do.

One of the selling points of immigration enthusiasts is that Diasporas improve bilateral trade relations but an interesting comment made by Ujjal Dosanjh - a Sikh in Canada who was bloc voted into becoming the first Indo-Canadian premier of a province - warrants some attention.

Commenting on Justin Sandiego’s family vacation to India he had the following to say to the CBC regarding trade relations between India and Canada:

"Trade still doesn't amount to much," he said. "Since the time I was premier, prime ministers and premiers have been going over and yet trade just hasn't grown as much as it could."

The article goes on to note how two-way trade between the two nations is a paltry $8 billion despite Canada hosting 1.4 million Indians which includes their Canadian born decedents or, as the Indian government considers them, Non-resident Indians and persons of Indian origin (NRI-PIOs).

Dosanjh further notes:

"The people-to-people links just haven't translated into strong economic links," said Dosanjh. "You've got grains and pulses, some pulp. But India's needs are mostly met by other markets."

The article then quotes some Indian at Carlton University who does some crystal-ball gazing anticipating the materialization of opportunities just over the horizon but isn’t that always the case regarding the economic benefits of mass immigration: speculation and assumption making with some "it's going to happen just be patient" promises thrown in?

To put this in perspective trade between Canada and the United States totaled $627.8 billion in 2016  making it the second largest trading relationship in the world albeit one where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus.  Nevertheless trade with the U.S. is central to Canada’s economic success and why Canadians enjoy such a high quality of life.  And there are approximately 327,575 American-Canadians.  If Diaspora’s improve trade relations then why aren’t we importing more Americans?  (Conversely there are approximately a little over 1 million Canadian-Americans; 400,000 less than there are Indians in Canada.  Indeed, there are more Indians in Canada than there are American-Canadians and Canadian-Americans combined).

Even the trade announcement made by Trudeau is lopsided with $750 million dollars going to India and India sending a measly $250 million Canada’s way but that’s typical of Indo-Canadian trade relations with investment being heavily weighted in India's favour.  And half of that $750 million investment is from one company, Toronto based Brookfield Asset Management, that is buying an office complex in Mumbai.

India is a country of 300 million households where 73% live in rural villages.  And of that 73% only 5% earn enough to pay taxes and 35.7% are illiterate.  There’s little to gain by investing in India except as a place to outsource jobs.  As for Indians the only thing they want from us is our citizenship and the ability to immigrate here.  Other than that they’re of little use to us and we’re just giving our country away to them because they can’t seem to make a country worth living in for themselves.

The truth is Diaspora’s don’t improve trade relations and the fact that 1.4 million Indians in Canada only translates into $8 billion worth of trade proves it doesn’t.  You don’t need to host an overseas Diaspora to enjoy a good trading relationship with a country.  If India wants something from Canada it will buy it from us.  We don’t need 1.4 million Indians in the country to entice them to do so and from the looks of things haven't done so.  In fact having 1.4 million Indians in the country, most of which are Sikh, is proving to be a headache for Canada but that’s for another post.