Immigration Watch Canada 2

Due to no tech support for page archive I have chosen to add another page until I can get our new website hosted for all my information. Until then I hope this keeps the truth moving to the public. thanks for your patience. Tami

Illegal Immigration destroying Europe! Posted Oct 26/16

Dan Murray

Attention Immigration Reformer:


Dan Murray

EARTH DAY–2017–Talking to a Stone Wall posted April 25/17

​​​​Talking to a Stone Wall:

An Open Letter to the Sierra Club Foundation of Canada on Earth Day

Dear readers: The following is my reply to one “Dianne Becket” of the Sierra Club Foundation of Canada”, who on Earth Day of April 22, 2016, essentially urged me to drop everything and, “make my mark” by signing a pledge to “push Canada towards a new, strong, and bold climate strategy” . “The time to step up is NOW”, she enjoined.


Dianne Beckett
Sierra Club Foundation of Canada

Ms. Beckett,

On April 22, 2016, on the occasion of Earth Day, you sent me an email on behalf of the Sierra Club Foundation of Canada. It was essentially a plea to encourage me to sign a pledge to promote what your organization regards as a potent and novel approach to address climate change.

Since you asked that I support this initiative immediately, I thought your message warranted an immediate response. I wanted to do just that, but I was initially inhibited by the probability that you will not bother to reply. So I will ask you straight up :

Do you receive replies to these emails? Do you acknowledge them or reply to them? If you don’t, you are a typical Sierra Club official and a suitable candidate for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada, or indeed of any of the political parties in Ottawa.

If you do occasionally reply to recipients who take issue with your emails, then please reply to this one. I have spent 9 years trying—and failing—to, as you put it, “make my mark” by pushing the Sierra Club to a “new, bold, strong climate strategy”. What’s that? Quite simple. Work to change the federal government’s 25 year long policy of hyper-immigration. A policy that has raised immigration intakes to stratospheric heights without any reasons that have not been debunked by a myriad of studies.

Why train your guns on hyper-immigration policy? Because hyper-immigration has a profoundly negative ecological impact on this country, and the world at large. Hyper- immigration is an ecological issue of utmost importance—and urgency. Something that David Suzuki publicly confided a few years ago, and a position that has long been shared by Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. But strangely, not by the Sierra Club. Which leads one to ask:

Would the Sierra Club, like the Green Party of Canada, seriously have Canadians believe that we can add a Toronto to our national population every decade without negative ecological impacts? Would the Sierra Club and the Green Party have Canadians believe that we can “decouple” economic growth—which is a function of per capita consumption and population growth—-from environmental degradation? Apparently so.

It has been a quarter century since the Kyoto Accord was signed, coincidentally the same year that Canada’s immigration quota went into hyper-drive. In that time, we’ve added another 8 million people. I think we should appreciate this point : that while we add population, nature won’t add more water, energy, land or resources. For some esoteric reason, many Canadians think nothing about the sobering reality that at our current rate, our national population level will soon reach 40 or 50 million consumers.

Growth-o-holics, big corporations and developers can be forgiven for applauding that prospect, but not environmentalists. Not the Sierra Club. Not Elizabeth May. And not mayors like Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson, who vow to make Vancouver the world’s “greenest” city while laying out the welcome mat for more and more newcomers. Kind of like a man who promises to lose weight but consumes a litre of ice cream every day.

If you surprise me by responding to my comments, please mull over the quotations below, which more or less summarize my views. And please, be the exception to the rule. Employ your own brain rather than falling back on the Sierra Club “Party Line”, or referring me to a section of the Sierra Club policy book, which I am well too familiar with. A section which, with all due respect, consists of utter nonsense and meaningless platitudes.

I could provide you with a more extensive list of quotations, but this one should suffice to make my point. I have reserved the best for the last. Pay particular attention to it, because it is blatantly appropriate now, on Earth Day. Why? Because the words were uttered by the founder of Earth Day, the former Democratic Senator of Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson.

But let’s start with comments from others :

“If we had the population level that we did in 1750, we could use any energy source we like.” James Lovelock, orginator of the Gaia Hypothesis

“You cannot have climate change without climate changers.” Alex Ferguson, UK energy expert

“Mass immigration-driven population growth since 1991, when the Kyoto Agreement was signed, has contributed twice as many GHG emissions in Canada as the Alberta Tar Sands Project”. John Meyer, founder of ZPG Canada and head of Canadians For Sustainability

“On average, each immigrant, upon arrival to the United States, quadruples his GHG emissions.” Leon Kolankiewicz, wildlife biologist, analyst and author

“Each immigrant or newborn added to the population of the UK wipes out 85 years of responsible recycling by any British citizen”. Stockholm Environmental Institute

“What is the sense of cutting our per capita energy use in half if we double the population?” Keith Hobson, former wildlife biologist for Environment Canada and now lecturer at the Western University in London, Ontario.

“The focus on per capita consumption is meaningless without taking into account the number of ‘capitas’ ” Dr. Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado (now deceased).

“By having two children, an American couple negates the gains of six major “green lifestyle” changes, like using a bicycle instead of a car, switching to CFL lights, recycling and conserving etc, BY A FACTOR OF 40.” Murtagh-Schlax study, the University of Oregon

“Energy efficient and renewable energy technology will result in increased consumption and more GHG emissions” Dr. Tim Garrett, University of Utah

“The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations are not due to people but to poor ideology or land-use management is sophistic. ”E.O. Wilson, famed Harvard researcher and author

“Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of the problem. It has to be addressed.” David Brower, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, former Executive Director of the Sierra Club USA, in his message of resignation from the Sierra Club board of directors before his death.

And finally, that quote from Earth Day Founder Senator Gaylord Nelson (now deceased):

“The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become…. We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it’s phony to say “I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration.”

One final question, Ms. Beckett. Do you know what “IPAT” means? You don’t? Then that speaks volumes about the ecological ignorance of the Sierra Club of Canada and Big Green Inc. The “IPAT” equation is the foundational formula of the environmental movement, developed by Dr. Paul Ehrlich and President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren way back in 1972.

“IPAT” means this: “I” (total environmental impact) equals “P (Population level) ” times “A (Affluence or per capita consumption)” times “T Technological factors) ”

or, to summarize : I = P x A x T

Again :

I = total environmental impact.

P= the population level

A=affluence or per capita consumption and

T= technological factors

“I” equals “P” times “A” times “T” or I = P x A x T. IPAT

If you take the “P” (Population) out of the equation, as mainstream environmental leaders have, then you render any comprehensive ecological understanding of our dire predicament impossible.

And if you don’t understand that the policy of hyper immigration accounts for roughly 70% of Canada’s population, a percentage that promises to increase, then you don’t know what drives population growth, and you can’t solve the problem. You can’t understand that hyper immigration exerts an upward pressure on GHG emissions, which accelerates the timetable of our global demise. No credible climate strategy can exclude our immigration policy as a consideration.

So here’s my challenge. Are you going to address all the causes of climate change? Or are you going to pretend that immigration-driven population growth in nations like Canada, the United States, and Australia has nothing to do with it, and that there is no relationship between GHG emissions and population/economic growth? Are you going to continue to discount or ignore the “multiplier” effect when migrants move from lower-emission countries to high-emissions countries like ours? Or are you going to accept the truth of David Suzuki’s comment that shifting people to Canada and turning them into hyper-consumers is madness? Are you going to be timid, or are you going to be bold and courageous? Are you going to be politically correct—or ecologically correct? Are you going to “step up” to the plate Ms. Beckett?

Tim Murray

Quadra Island, BC


Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said that “The policy of multiculturalism in Western Europe is bringing about a bloody harvest in the form of terrorist attacks.” He went on to declare that his country will not fall prey to the violence sweeping across much of Europe due to the open borders. […]


LYING OUR WAY TO CANADA—-PART 2—This is a continuation of the story I told in Part 1. I am an Israeli Citizen Who filed a Fake Refugee Claim in Canada.

LIES REVEALED: In July, 2009, after residing in Toronto for about 2 years, I discovered why my wife so badly wanted to stay in Canada and thus was badgering me to remain in spite of the fact that I wanted to return to Israel where I had my permanent job and home. On July 3, 2009, an old neighbor in Israel contacted me and alerted me of news that my wife had had an affair in our family home in Israel. In the end, she aborted that man’s child.

That news broke in our Israeli neighborhood while we were on our vacation in the USA and Canada. Even before this, she had decided not to return due to the shame she felt. But she kept all of this to herself. When I told my wife what our neighbor had reported to me, she confessed and explained to me that was why she did not want to return to Israel.

Around this time, my wife started attending a church and the pastor started counseling us knowing that we had lied to stay in Canada. I insisted on returning to Israel so she decided (to herself) that her chances of staying in Canada would be better if she claimed that I was abusive towards her and our kids. When I finally decided to return to Israel without her approval, she again refused to leave Canada. But now she added that if I ever revealed the secret of how we got to stay in Canada, she would tell the police that I was an abusive husband and I would be sent to jail while she stayed in Canada. All of these lies in our marriage and news of her affair resulted in our marital breakdown. I realized she was using the kids as a tool because she knew I was a father who loved his kids. I was advised to let her move to an Abused Women’s Shelter so that we could get subsidized housing to help us with our accommodation and to enable us to save some money, but I declined. I did so because I felt guilty about lying even more.

None of us worked in Toronto all the time that we lived there. On December 26th, 2010, when she saw that I still wanted to move back to Israel, but that I would not move back without alerting Citizenship and Immigration Canada of our fraud and apologizing, she went to the church she had been attending. The pastor had advised her to go to the Abused Women’s Shelter the next day and all arrangements were made for her to do that. She had decided that she would be better off financially by doing this. I do not know what expenses were covered and what income she was receiving at the Abused Women’s Shelter. But I do know that she would have subsidized housing and aid from social workers, lawyers, and counselors. I also know that our two youngest children would be able to attend day care there in the shelter and that this would be paid for by the Ontario government. I have no information whatsoever about what goes on in the shelter. She offered to take our two older kids together with our two much younger ones to the shelter. However, the two older kids refused to go with her.

Because my wife had claimed to be a battered woman, a claim which was never true, the Children’s Aid society (CAS) now entered our lives—with the potential to remove the two older kids from their home with me. All this was happening because my wife had told the CAS that the two older children were not safe with me. But after the CAS interviewed the children and me, and concluded that my wife’s statements were not true, the CAS left the children with me. Eventually, the CAS closed their file and, upon my request, sent me copies of everything they had investigated.

There was no Police involvement in our family until I found out that my wife had come to my house one day and taken the two oldest of our children to the Abused Women’s Shelter in Toronto. I contacted the Toronto Police at Scarborough (Eglinton East) and spoke to Officer Omsby. My wife was apprehended. She informed the police that she was going to remain in the shelter and that the two older kids could leave and return to me.

However, not long after this, a new phase began in my life. I started getting invitations to court about custody and support. I knew what was going to happen since the Canadian system favors women. Upon contacting the Police who saw her lies about my alleged abuse, etc., I decided to come clean and leave.

I therefore contacted the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency), CIC (Citizenship and Immigration), and IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board) and willingly vacated my refugee status. I told them my true identity and that I wanted to return to Israel. I was scrutinized thoroughly. Eventually, CBSA allowed me to leave with my two older children. The CBSA wouldn’t allow the three of us to leave while we were still classified as convention refugees. It’s now been five months since we left Canada.

I went through hell going to and from GTEC (the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre). In addition to my vacating hearing, CBSA interviewed me and my two older kids to make sure they really wanted to return with me instead of staying with their mother. I now live peacefully in Israel with those two oldest kids. The CBSA currently has my wife’s original Israeli Passport.

At this point, Legal Aid Ontario is paying for a proceeding in Toronto Family Court on whether our two youngest kids (who were born in Canada) can come and join those with me already in Israel. My ex-wife is fighting to keep them in Canada. She hopes that she will succeed in filing a Humanitarian and Compassionate application based upon the fact that she is afraid of coming back to Israel because of me and that she has two Canadian-born kids with her. The Family Court proceedings are still going on due to the fact that Canada’s Department of Immigration and the Ontario government are not doing their job effectively and thus allowing her to use the system to keep the kids there even though those kids are entitled to Israeli Passports and to go to Israel. I have recently heard that she vacated her refugee status in mid-October.

I have read many reports about Immigration and refugee fraud in Canada and regret every bit of fraud that I committed. I apologize to Canada. During the hearing at which I vacated my status willingly, I gave a letter of apology to the panel member and to the CBSA officer (Ms. Sharon Thomas, the CBSA officer). The files on my ex-wife and I were separated that day.

To give readers an idea of how much Canada was paying for our stay, the following will provide a good picture : At the time I and my two oldest children left, I was receiving $589.26 in CCTB (Child tax benefits), $256 in GST and $354.56 in OST benefits. I also received $1656 from the social services for basic needs and shelter. Last but not least, we received free medical.

The amazing thing is that although I left Canada on May 7th 2011, when I went online at the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) website about a week later, I found out that the CCTB would be depositing the child tax benefit on the 20th of the month as usual. “O my God”, I said to myself. “They are going to do that even though I am not even living in Canada any more.” I e-mailed a very respectful woman who was at my vacate hearing and asked her what to do. She told me to call the CRA which I did. The man I talked to asked me many questions because he did not believe that I was out of the country till I hit hard. Finally, he agreed to cancel all three of the benefits (CCTB, OST and GST) that the CRA was responsible for. In the next few days when I went online, I found out they had been cancelled.

I also called and faxed my Social worker in the Ontario Social Services office. Because she knew me, she agreed to cancel the benefits (Shelter, Basic needs and medical ) that I and my two oldest children were receiving.

My point here is that the left hand in Canada does not know what the right hand is doing. When my status was vacated, no one from anywhere alerted all the offices (which had been giving financial assistance to us) to cancel the assistance and therefore it continued coming !!!

Thank you for reading this.

Dan Murray

Long Island, New York: MS-13 gang violence appears to be responsible for the murders of four teens who were brutally beaten and hacked to death with machetes. The US war on drugs and drug prohibition draws criminals seeking to dominate the highly profitable black market. […]  please join petition posted April 18/17

Dear Tami,

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t believe in having borders.

I know this because I spent the past week undercover, investigating an underground illegal refugee smuggling scheme at the Canada-U.S. border.

That’s right: There’s an illegal migrant crisis at Canada’s southern border and Justin Trudeau doesn’t care.


In the past few months, Canadians have heard of hundreds of so-called “refugees” crossing Canada’s land border with the U.S. and making claims for refugee status in Canada.

Canadians have good reason to be suspicious of the validity of such claims. To make this point clearer, we are re-publishing the confession of an Israeli citizen who entered Canada in 2007 from the U.S. with his wife and children. With the complicity of refugee advocates in Toronto and experienced fraudsters who had duped Canadian immigration / refugee authorities and succeeded in getting refugee status, he and his family were also granted refugee status.

After living off Canada for several years, he became tired of lying and returned to Israel. This bulletin is his confession of the fraud that he and his family committed.

This confession should remind Canadians of the extensive fraud that has occurred in Canada’s refugee system. It is happening again on a very visible stage.

This is a very large problem for a number of reasons.

(1) Since 1989, the year that the Mulroney government failed to institute a Safe Country law to prevent fake refugees from making claims, well over 1,000,000 people have filed refugee claims here. We’ll say that again : Over one million !!! If Canada had not instituted its Safe Country list and its Safe Country agreement with the U.S., Canada would have had to deal with at least tens of thousands more fake refugee claimants. (See the link to the list and the year when the safe country approved of its name being added to the list :

(2) Canada’s immigration lobby, (immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, immigration advocates and ethnic groups) sabotaged 1989 safe country legislation and eventually diverted billions of dollars from helping real refugees overseas to filling the pockets of the lobby. It is now pressing to have Canada’s Safe Country Agreement with the U.S. repealed. Critics have described the lobby as a veritable cesspool which has have repeatedly duped our immigration system.

(3) Canada (along with the U.S.) has one of the highest refugee claim acceptance rates in the world. Yet, the immigration lobby is trying to portray the U.S. as a country with a high refugee applicant refusal rate.

(4) Canada’s right to defend itself from fraudsters who have used loopholes to abuse Canada is being assaulted again. As a result of the notorious “Singh Decision” in 1985 in which six citizens of India named “Singh” and one from Guyana successfully challenged a section of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Refugee claimants subsequently became eligible to receive Canadian health and social assistance benefits. This decision meant that Canadian taxpayers eventually had to pay about $2 to $3 Billion per year for benefits provided to people who made refugee claims. At the peak of the abuse of Canada’s refugee system, about 30,000 to 40,000 claims were being made here every year.

(5) While Canada’s quasi-judicial refugee system provided huge profits for the immigration lobby, it ignored the spirit of the law. According to the Supreme Court, “The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the refugee determination process existing at the time was invalid because it did not necessarily provide the claimant with an oral hearing. The judges’ greatest concern with the Immigration Act was the lack of opportunity of the claimant to state his case and know the Minister’s case against the claimant. At that time, an application before the Immigration Appeal Board (IAB) was usually rejected before the refugee claimant had an opportunity to discover the Minister’s case against him in the context of a hearing. The Court therefore found that the refugee determination procedures established in the Immigration Act, 1976 did not accord the refugee claimant fundamental justice and violated section 7 of the Charter.” The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the word “person” in the Canadian charter meant that a ‘person” in Canada did not have to be a Canadian citizen in order to receive health and social assistance benefits.

(6) The impact of refugee claimants has been enormous. Our Department of Citizenship and Immigration has not revealed the number of relatives that accepted refugees have sponsored, but that figure is probably the major percentage of several million Family Class immigrants who have come to Canada since 1989. In fact, family re-unification has become village re-unification. For example, as we have pointed out before, one Somali man has brought 100 “family” members to Canada. Many well-publicized cases of fraud (the Laibar Singh case) demonstrate the cheating that has occurred in Canada’s refugee system. Laibar Singh was eventually deported to the Punjab, and admitted there that his claim was fraudulent. However, hundreds of thousands of other fraudsters remain in Canada and laugh at Canada.

(7) A full list of the reasons given for claiming refugee status has never been published, but it would probably show how far Canada has traveled from Canada’s early intentions to help real refugees. For instance, people have claimed they needed refugee status because they were fat, gay, being called names, subjected to spousal abuse, etc. The amazing thing is that they have had a significant number of Canadians actually believe that these are legitimate reasons for these people to be granted refugee status. Some refugee claimants are genuine, but as the the case of the Israeli man shows, the sympathy and star status that is given to almost all refugee claimants is not deserved.



I am writing from Tel Aviv in Israel. The major characters in the following story are me (Innocent Kwarteng—a fake name I used in Canada), my ex-wife, and my two oldest children. We are all Israeli citizens. My wife is an Ethiopian Falasha Jew who was brought to Israel under a project which allowed Ethiopian Jews to return to Israel as new Immigrants. I am not Jewish originally. I married my wife in 1996 in Israel and as a result, I received Israeli Citizenship. My two oldest children were born in Israel and they are Jewish, based upon the fact that their mother is Jewish.

On May 21, 2007, after I, my wife and two oldest children had traveled from Israel to Orlando, Florida for a family vacation at Disney World, we drove a rented car from Florida to Niagara Falls, Ontario to visit Israeli friends who lived in Toronto. At the time we entered Canada in 2007, I did not think that I would be staying in Canada for long. However, after visiting with these friends in Toronto who had claimed refugee status as Ethiopians, my wife also wanted to stay in Canada. These friends explained how we could make the same claim that they had made. We lived in Toronto for about two months, during which time my wife and I argued about whether or not we should make a refugee claim. On the 24th day of August 2007, we made a false refugee claim. We pretended that we had just landed from Africa (Ethiopia/Ghana). To prevent the truth from being discovered, we hid our Israeli passports at someone else’s house.

In the 4+ years between the time we filed our refugee claim and the time I left, Ontario social services paid for our stay : our accommodation at a cost of $1100 per month and basic needs. In December 2007, my wife had a new baby (our third of the four children we now have) in Toronto’s Scarborough General Hospital. That child became a Canadian by birth. We gave her a name to suit our fake name, not our original names as registered on our Israeli Passports. At our refugee claim hearing on August 10th, 2009, we were accepted as convention refugees based upon the fact that we were Africans. The Hearing officials did not know that we had Israeli Citizenship because we had not disclosed this fact. We also did not reveal that we had never lived in Ethiopia.

In our refugee application, we also claimed that we had been victims of abuse and torture in Ethiopia. But, in fact, that was a lie because we had never lived there.The whole story we gave the officials in Canada was a pre-arranged story written by people who had already lived in Toronto and who knew how the refugee system worked and how it could be abused.

We had fake identification sent from Ethiopia by my wife’s sister who lived in Ethiopia and to whom we paid money for this service. Among the fake false pieces of identification sent by her were Personal Information Forms (PIF). The names of our siblings, et al were changed to suit my wife’s PIF. Other fraudulent identification consisted of Ethiopian birth certificates for the kids who actually had legitimate birth Certificates from Israel as well as a fake birth Certificate for my wife, and other fake ID cards for me and my wife. My wife also got a fake Ethiopian Driver’s License which she later tried to exchange for a Canadian Driver’s License with the help of an Ethiopian translator who gave her signals during the theory exam about the answers she should give. After the theory test, she tried twice to pass the practical exam and failed. The truth is she had never driven in her life. She did take a few courses in Toronto, but they could not help her to pass the practical test.

My wife badgered me to stay in Canada with her and our children (two of them at that time). While I did not want to stay, I had little choice because I did not want to lose my kids by going back to Israel alone. A year after our arrival, other family members joined us from Israel in the same way that we had come. They also filed Bogus refugee claims by doing the same things we had done.


from: Terry Muslims want their own Country Within Australia. posted April 13/17
Published on Mar 12, 2017
Muslims want their own Country Within Australia. Even Muslims secular living in Australia are afraid. Canada, because of its Weak Stupid Prime Minister Justin Trudeau And Stupid Brampton Mayor Linda Jeffery. Liberalism have confused these idiots and cannot decipher that Muslims cannot live in Civilized Nation. When I say this it’s Islamophobia. But When Muslims believe and taught at young age that other religions such as Christians, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu and Sikhism are all false and haram, that is not hate nor it’s religious phobia by Muslims.
Illegal Immigration From Mexico In Steep Decline Because New Migrants Know They Will Be Arrested And Deported posted April 12/17

President Trump’s executive order allowing the US Border Patrol to enforce laws has drastically reduced illegal immigration from Mexico, because new immigrants are no longer willing to risk being arrested and deported. […]

For your information, Immigration Watch Canada is sending you its latest bulletin: “A DEFENSE OF THE SAFE COUNTRY CONCEPT FOR REFUGEES.”

By James Bissett
Former Canadian Ambassador and from 1985 to 1990, Executive Director of the Canadian Immigration Service

In late June of this year, Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister John Manley and United States Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, announced a thirty point smart border plan designed to improve security along the US/Canadian border.

Included in the plan is a provision to declare the United States a safe country for refugees. This provision if approved by the legislators of both countries will mean that some of the people arriving at Canadian land border points from the United States will no longer be allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada.

This is a long overdue first step in the direction of reforming Canada’s dysfunctional inland refugee system.

The possibility of the United States being declared a safe country for refugees has outraged refugee activists, immigration lawyers and non-governmental organizations that receive Government funding to look after refugee claimants after their arrival in Canada.

These groups protest that the United States is not a safe country for refugees, despite the fact that country is also a signatory to the UN refugee Convention and accepts 53 percent of refugee applicants compared to Canada’s acceptance rate of 57percent. These traditionally staunch defenders of an open door policy for people claiming flight from persecution further insist that anyone entering Canada should have the right to make a claim for refugee status.

These groups also have been highly successful in ensuring that Canada’s asylum system has remained resistant to any attempt at badly needed reform. It was primarily through their lobbying efforts that the Mulroney government failed to enact the safe country section of the 1989 refugee legislation, thus effectively negating that legislation and opening Canada up to thousands of illegal immigrants posing as refugees [ more than 400,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada since 1989.]

These same groups lobbied hard for passage of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act approved in November 2002. This legislation made it easier for people to claim refugee status and more difficult to remove those who were found not to be genuine. This was done by broadening the definition of refugee accepted by the United Nations; adding yet a further level of appeal for refused cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]; and formalizing and requiring a pre-removal risk review before anyone could be removed from the country.

Even before this new legislation was introduced, Canada had the most generous asylum system in the world. Consequently, there did not appear to be any rational reason for making the most generous system even more generous- but strong lobbying by the special interest groups managed to convince a willing Government to proceed. The timing was ill advised and the legislation itself bordered on the irresponsible. Notwithstanding hard evidence that Canada was rapidly becoming the country of choice for human smuggling by criminal organizations and despite strong evidence that a number of asylum seekers were known to be associated with al Qaeda terrorists, our Members of Parliament showed no concern. The Bill proceeded through the House of Commons unchanged.

Surprisingly, the legislation did not even stimulate any serious debate nor did it meet with any effective opposition in Parliament. The Bill was under debate before the House of Commons when the terrorist attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took place. Later, during hearings in the Senate, a former Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council and three former Ambassadors appeared before the Senate Committee. They argued the Bill was seriously flawed and asked, in the light of the September events, that it be returned to the House of Commons to strengthen the security sections. The Senate Committee ignored this plea and rapidly approved the Bill, with little public fanfare.

Quite apart from the events on September 11, it was evident that the new Canadian legislation was out of step with the other asylum receiving countries. While Western European countries, the United States and Australia were tightening up their asylum systems, Canada was moving in the opposite direction.

Countries that are signatories to the United Nations Convention Relating to Refugees are thereby obliged to protect people fleeing persecution. Experience has demonstrated that if a country uses a quasi-judicial system to determine refugee status then there is every chance numbers will overwhelm the system. Backlogs build up and the process becomes so lengthy that it may take up to two years for a case to be heard. The system then becomes vulnerable to wide scale abuse and becomes a target for human smugglers. This is what has happened in Canada.

To protect the asylum system from abuse and to ensure that only credible cases get to the refugee board, most refugee receiving countries implement pre-screening procedures. There are a variety of methods used to achieve this purpose,but the most common technique is the safe country concept.

The rational for this concept is that if an individual is a citizen of a country that is democratic, a signatory to the UN refugee Convention and has a good human rights record, then the person concerned is unlikely to be a genuine refugee. If the claimant is not a citizen of a safe country but has arrived from one that is safe, then the person concerned can be returned to that country to have the claim considered there. Therefore, refugee applicants who are citizens of safe countries or who arrive via safe countries are deemed ineligible to make a refugee claim and are treated as illegal entrants. This form of screening- out ineligible applicants puts a stop to asylum shopping and leaves the Refugee Board free to adjudicate the most credible cases.

In the current system, anyone arriving in Canada, however, is entitled to claim refugee status and almost every one who applies is entitled to a full refugee hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. They are also entitled to a full range of social benefits while waiting for their claim to be heard including free legal representation. The costs to the Canadian taxpayer of this system have been estimated to be in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 billion dollars each year.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] estimates there to be close to twenty five million refugees under the jurisdiction of his office. These poor people are living in desperate conditions in refugee camps around the world.

The UNHCR, with a budget of about $ 1 billion US, lacks funds to adequately feed, house, or in some cases, even to afford these refugees basic protection from armed attacks by marauding bands.

Canada gives the UNHCR a meager 20 to 25 million dollars annually. Yet our refugee activists and immigration lawyers see no contradiction in the amounts spent on asylum seekers as compared to what is given to help genuine refugees in the camps.

Last year 44,000 asylum seekers arrived in Canada: the year before the figure was 38,000. Almost all of these people came to Canada from or through safe countries, mainly from Western Europe or the United States. Few, if any came directly form the country where they claimed to be persecuted.

The highest numbers come from countries that provide Canada with most of its legal immigrants: China, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Obviously these people are not coming to Canada to flee persecution but to avoid having to meet normal immigration requirements including medical, criminal and security checks.

Many thousands of these entrants arrive without documents or with false or altered ones. These are the people using the services of professional smugglers. Arriving in Canada without documents is not a barrier to admission and very few of those who do so are detained. Most are fingerprinted, photographed and released on the day they arrive. Security and criminal checks are started upon their arrival but often such checks take many months to complete. In the meantime they are on their own and free to reside anywhere in Canada. Since there is no tracking system there isn’t any way of knowing where these people have gone. What is known is that 20% or more never bother to show up for their refugee hearing. So far, the Canadian Government has not seemed to consider this a security concern.

In the first four months of this year, almost 11000 people arrived claiming to be refugees fleeing persecution. They were citizens of 152 different countries. Among them were citizens of the United States, Costa Rica, Brazil, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Portugal, Hungary, Argentina, Mexico, India, Turkey, Venezuela, Philippines, and Barbados as well as claimants arriving from France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands! These are the people we are expected to believe are fleeing torture and death at the hands of their malevolent government!

It is highly unlikely that any of these claimants would have been permitted to apply for refugee status in the United States or Western Europe. They would have been screened out as coming from safe countries or subjected to accelerated procedures as manifestly unfounded claimants. Not so in Canada. The refugee activists would be outraged and would charge that these people, if not allowed to submit a claim, would be forced to return to certain torture or death.Such charges are of course ridiculous but the media usually gives credence to whatever is said by immigration lawyers and refugee activists on the assumption they are acting on behalf of genuine refugees.

Ironically, perhaps the greatest threat to the well being of the 25 million refugees around the world is the immigration lawyers and refugee activists.These self- proclaimed protectors of the refugee devote most of their time and energy in advocacy work on behalf of the thousands of asylum seekers coming to Canada each year. They express little interest in the global plight of refugees in the camps.

The special interest groups have become the acknowledged experts on refugee matters. They exert influence far beyond their numbers or their importance in Canadian society. They are the organizations that receive Government funding for their activities. They are the organizations that regularly appear before Parliamentary Committees. They are invited to make presentations during Government consultations on refugee issues. The Minister of Immigration and the media consult them whenever refugee matters are to be discussed. The obvious conflict of interest involved is overlooked or ignored.

The inland refugee system has evolved into a multi-million dollar industry in Canada. Non-Governmental organizations receive millions of dollars each year to care for asylum seekers. Immigration lawyers receive millions in legal fees to represent asylum seekers at hearings before the IRB. The 180 or so members of the IRB, all of whom are political appointees and few of whom have any relevant refugee experience, receive annual salaries in the 80,000 to 100,000 dollar range.

The processing costs alone for asylum seekers last year was 150 million dollars. This does not include the far greater costs for housing, welfare and medical care.

Direct costs are not the only price Canada pays for its outmoded and misguided asylum system. Because of its refusal to enact a sensible safe country provision, Canada has been forced to impose visitor visa requirements on a great many democratic and friendly countries [excepting visitors from Western Europe and the United States], fearing that their citizens will submit refugee claims after their arrival. Such action not only is a barrier to free travel it has an adverse impact on our international trade and tourist industry. Furthermore, the imposition of visa requirements is always interpreted as an unfriendly act by the country affected, damaging our bilateral relations.

Canada’s asylum system is not serving the interests of refugees. It inhibits us from doing our share to help resolve the serious global refugee problem. It encourages and rewards human smuggling. It undermines every effort undertaken to improve the security of North America against terrorist infiltration. It impairs our international trade and tourist industry. It has strained our bilateral relations with many friendly nations. It makes a mockery of our regular immigration programme at the cost of millions of dollars that might better be spent in other, more essential areas. In short, it is an area of public policy that cries out for urgent reform.

Reform should not be difficult. As a first step all that is needed is to enact the safe country provision that is already incorporated in the Immigration Act. The Government has the legislative power to list countries that are safe for refugees and to declare persons from those countries ineligible to make an asylum claim. All of the countries of the European Union have such a provision and the UNHCR has approved this method of pre-screening.

There is some difference of opinion about whether Canada can decide unilaterally if a country is safe for refugees, or if this must be negotiated with the country concerned. I am firmly of the view that the legislation enables the Canadian government to decide this unilaterally and without negotiation, as European countries do. What can be negotiated are arrangements for the return of illegal immigrants. Such return arrangements have proven useful in the European context.

It is time that Canada once again played a leadership role in refugee issues. We can only do that by recognizing the difference between illegal migrants entering the country in the guise of seeking asylum and the real refugees, who are living in refugee camps. We must first, however, devise policies that are in the best interests of the refugee and of Canada. Perhaps the first tentative step taken by Mr. Manley will lead to further and more significant reform.

[Mr. Bissett is a former Canadian Ambassador and from 1985 to 1990 was the Executive Director of the Canadian Immigration Service.]

Dear Tami, ( Treasonous Policies of Teaching Religious ignorance in our schools to our children! Posted Mar 29/17 )

You won’t believe the new schoolbook they’re giving to our children.

It’s a book about the Muslim head-covering for girls, called the hijab.

Here’s a powerful new video about it by Barbara Kay:


Even more bizarre, this book was written by a Canadian diplomat to the United Nations.

What do you think? Do you think Canadian girls should be taught to wear hijabs?

Or should Muslim girls be taught to be free?

Yours truly,

Ezra Levant

P.S. I have the right to question this book today. But with Trudeau’s Liberals forcing through M-103, their anti-Islamophobia motion, I’m not sure how much longer that will be true. Visit our website at to learn more.

This is why I do not believe foreigners should ever be allowed to participate in our government unless there parents are born here. Also they have proven there loyalty to our language, people, values, laws and flag not a corrupted religion or government! Tami posted Mar 28/17

Maryland: Two illegal aliens, Henry Sanchez, 18, of Guatemala and Jose Montano, 17, of El Salvador, have been charged in the brutal anal, oral, and vaginal rape of a 14-year old girl in the bathroom at Rockville High School. […]

The post Illegal Aliens Raped A 14-Year Old Girl in Her School Where More Than Half Of The Students Are Immigrants appeared first on Need To Know News.
Read more…

M- 103 Treason substance in Canada by traitor Liberals and mind controlled Government representatives ! Posted Mar 22/17

Respected Muslim Scholar Tarek Fatah warns Canadian Senate Committee Truth Posted Mar 20/17

Justice Department To Assign Immigration Judges To 12 Cities To Speed Up Deportations of Criminals posted Mar 20/17

The Justice Department is planning to temporarily reassign immigration judges from around the country to twelve cities to speed up deportations of illegal immigrants who have been charged with crimes. […]

The post Justice Department To Assign Immigration Judges To 12 Cities To Speed Up Deportations of Criminals appeared first on Need To Know News.
Read more…

Opinion: Canada needs plan to deal with undocumented migrants posted Mar 20/17
Martin Collacott
Published by The Vancouver Sun on: March 11, 2017

PHOTO : A refugee family, who claimed to be from Colombia, were arrested by a Quebec RCMP officer as they crossed the border from New York late last month. Ryan Remiorz / THE CANADIAN PRESS

The readiness of many Canadians to accept a reasonable number of refugees for resettlement is likely to come under increasing strain as asylum seekers exploit our system to enter Canada illegally and make claims. While the government has mounted a campaign to try to convince us that we should take more refugees, public support for immigration and refugees is in fact “soft” and failure to deal effectively with the growing problems at the border could well lead to a major backlash.

The main channel being used (by) the illegal entrants is a provision of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). While the agreement requires they make their claim in whichever of the two countries they find themselves in, in the event they somehow manage to cross the border and enter Canada undetected, they can make what is called an “inland claim” in Canada (the fiction being that we don’t know if they entered from the U.S. even if they are only one foot inside our border).

Hundreds have used this provision so far this year and the numbers continue to grow. Very few, if any, probably qualify as conventional refugees, i.e. entitled to resettlement because they are fleeing persecution in their homelands. The vast majority are simply seeking a better life but lack the qualifications to come to Canada as immigrants.

The head of the union representing the nation’s border officers has described the situation as like “Swiss cheese” that is allowing in not only illegal migrants but also contraband and has called on Ottawa to create a special force to deal with the situation.

Nor is the price we pay for the illegal entries insignificant given that the cost to taxpayers of processing each rejected application is estimated at $26,000 — which does not include any costs for removing them from the country.

To control the border, we will not only need to add significant resources of our own, but will require the cooperation of the United States. Some might expect that the Americans might be more than pleased to see the departure of large numbers of undocumented migrants without having to take any action of their own to achieve this. It is more likely, however, that Washington would have little enthusiasm for the development of a situation along its Canadian border that involved widespread illegal activity and could result in some degree of destabilization of its northern neighbour.

The U.S., moreover, is currently facing the problem of returning non-Mexicans who have crossed into the U.S. across their southern border. This has long been a route for Central Americans, Indians, Sri Lankans and others to enter the U.S. and possibly continue on to Canada. At this point, however, the Mexicans are expressing a reluctance to take back these foreign nationals. Put simply, the U.S. is unlikely under the circumstances to challenge returns on their northern border.

One of the things we will need to do to stop the hemorrhaging into Canada of illegal entries is to change the STCA so that someone who makes a claim inside our border must provide reasonable proof they did not enter from the United States. If they cannot do this, they will not be allowed to file a refugee claim and will be summarily returned to the U.S.

We will probably not be able to apprehend all illegal border crossers in this way, but will make the prospects of a successful crossing sufficiently remote that the numbers prepared to try it will diminish significantly.

Such measures will be vehemently opposed by refugee advocates, lawyers and academics, etc. who believe we should have a system that lets as many asylum seekers into Canada as possible regardless of their merits, and have little concern about the negative impact this might have on Canadians.

While refugee activists try to argue that Canada is the only really “safe” country in the world for asylum seekers, Canadian courts have found that the STCA is constitutional, based on the fact that the office of U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has confirmed that the U.S. is a safe country for the purposes of the agreement.

In 2015, Angela Merkel allowed large numbers of asylum seekers to enter Germany without exercising control over numbers or determining who was coming in. In the end, the situation got so badly out of hand she acknowledged that the unrestricted entry had to be stopped. Her political future remains in doubt, however, because of her failure to anticipate how many people would use the asylum system to gain entry and try to remain in Germany.

The same thing could easily happen here if the government fails to take measures to control the intake of undocumented migrants. Ottawa therefore needs to determine how it can best deal with this rapidly developing problem as a matter of urgency.

Martin Collacott lives in Surrey and is a former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East. He has frequently addressed parliamentary committees on immigration and asylum issues.

Canada BANS Islamophobia | Motion 103 | Islam Apologists | Part One posted Mar 18/17

Islamophobia in Canada? How Phony Victimhood Politics Might Cost Your Freedom of Speech  Posted Mar 18/17

Sweden Migrant Crisis: Less Than 1 In 5 Migrant Rapists Deported posted Mar 17/17

Sweden’s government reported that fewer than one in five foreign rapists were deported for their crimes between 2010 to 2014, and the deportations for child rape were even lower at a rate of 13%. These astounding statistics speak louder than words about who really controls the Swedish government. As in most so-called democracies, it obviously is not the voters. […]

The post Sweden Migrant Crisis: Less Than 1 In 5 Migrant Rapists Deported appeared first on Need To Know News.
Read more…

Turkey Threatens to Open Floodgates & Weaponize 2-Million Migrants Against The EU  posted Mar 15/17

Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said that Europe has not kept its promises on the migrant deal and, therefore, the agreement is ended, and Turkey is threatening to unleash two-million migrants on Europe. This would be a self-punishing move on the Part of the Turks inasmuch as the Dutch invest $22 billion per year in Turkey and are Turkey’s 10th largest importer. Invasion by immigration would guarantee a backlash in Europe and a recession in Turkey. […]

The post Turkey Threatens to Open Floodgates & Weaponize 2-Million Migrants Against The EU appeared first on Need To Know News.  ( this update demonstrates why I asked Canadians if your believe immigrants should only be able to vote if there parents were born here and have shown loyalty to our flag, values and people? Tami
Read more…

Could The Netherlands Be Overthrown By 400K Turkish Immigrants Living There? Posted Mar 15/17

The Netherlands has banned rallies by Turks living there who are conducting political campaigns for an election in Turkey. There are 5.5-million Turks living in Europe, and many of them are allowed to vote in their homeland elections. Consequently, Turkish President Erdogan has been sending his agents abroad to garner those votes – but the Dutch want no part of it. Leaders in The Netherlands are worried that Turkish voters in their country, who are divided on support for Erdogan, will clash with each other and cast an unfavorable light on immigration. In response to the ban on Turkish political rallies in Holland, the Turkish government has threatened the Dutch government with sanctions and has theorized that The Netherlands army of 48,000 soldiers could not prevail against 400,000 Turkish immigrants. […]

The post Could The Netherlands Be Overthrown By 400K Turkish Immigrants Living There? appeared first on Need To Know News.
Read more…     ( this update demonstrates why I asked Canadians if your believe immigrants should only be able to vote if there parents were born here and have shown loyalty to our flag, values and people? Tami)


Good news! Your voices were heard and the coalition that formed to pass M-103 is beginning to crumble. As you probably know by know, Parliament DID NOT VOTE on M-103 on February 16th; instead the vote has been deferred until April.

M-103 is a speech-restrictive Parliamentary motion that would law the groundwork for a Sharia “anti-blasphemy” law. It was expected to pass with unanimous support, but when average citizens like you and I got together to express our concerns, the momentum began to stall…

We’ve already collected over 71,000 signatures, which is more than the number of signatures on the petition that intiatied M-103 in the first place. But the fight isn’t over.

We need to keep up the pressure until April. Please continue signing and sharing this petition to stop M-103! Every signature sends an email to Parliament, so make your voice heard!

SIGN the petition:

SHARE the petition:

The Conservatives (Tories) introduced their own motion in response to M-103, which omits the problematic term “Islamophobia” and includes a broad cross-section of religious communities.
Unfortunately, the Liberals shot it down. This exposes the fact that M-103 isn’t actually about condemning religious discrimination or systemic racism, it’s about prioritizing Islam and providing it a preferential place in Parliament. ( this is why I ask Canadians that do your think people who are not born here should be able to participate in our government? Tami)
Meanwhile, aspiring Conservative Party leaders (including Kelli Leitch, Kevin O’Leary, Maxime Bernier, Steven Blaney, and Andrew Scheer) have come out in opposition to M-103 and even a fomer Liberal minister is now saying the motion is a mistake.
Can you keep the pressure on Parliament by signing this petition and sharing it with your friends and family?


Thanks in advance,

Josh Craddock and the entire CitizenGO team

We Must Stop M-103!
Speech restrictive motion seeks to impose Sharia-style “anti-blasphemy” law

We only have until April before Parliament votes on M-103, which would lay the groundwork for banning criticism of Islam and censoring viewpoints that disagree!

Dear Doug,
The motion will encourage legislation that would criminalize speech deemed “islamophobic” and lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada.
If that happens, criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada.
This motion uses the term “islamophobia” without defining it, and without substantiating that there is in fact any such widespread problem in Canada.
This will lead to ideologically-driven overreach and enforcement against alternative points of view—including mature, reasoned criticisms of Islam.

SIGN here to stop M-103:

SHARE the petition here:

If this motion passes and legislation is enacted:
  • Criticism of the treatment of women in Islamic-majority Middle Eastern countries could be criminalized;
  • It could be a punishable offense to speak out against the Mustlim Brotherhood, or to denounce radical Imams who want to enact Sharia law in Canada;
  • Criticism or depiction of Muhammad could be punishable by law;
  • Schools that teach the history of Islam’s violent conquests could be fined—or worse.
That kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.

Sign here:

Share here:

Furthermore, Motion 103 addresses a particular religion to the government’s special consideration, while ignoring hostility toward other faiths, such as Christianity or Judaism.
Passing this resolution would demonstrate a clear and impermissible governmental preference for Islam over other faiths.
Sign the petition immediately to send a message to MPs and party leaders, asking them to drop support for M-103!

Sign the petition here:

Share the petition here:

Thanks for joining me to stop this motion! I’ll be keeping an eye on the Motion’s progress. Hopefully we can stop it. But if it passes, I’ll be in touch about next steps…

Your friend,

Josh Craddock and the entire CitizenGO team

Advice to Manitoba Premier posted Mar 14/17


The government of Manitoba is currently experiencing a flood of refugee claimants on its border with the U.S. Well over 500 have entered and the possibility of thousands more looms. To deal with this issue, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has just announced that his government will provide financing for 14 new housing units. His announcement is naive and shows that he has been duped by the immigration lobby. Instead of catering to them, he should be pressuring back-boneless Trudeau to stop the inflow. Several months ago, Trudeau should have given orders to return these fake refugee claimants to the U.S. Instead he announced that Canada would welcome them.


Financing housing units for fake refugees will divert scarce resources from the needy populations of Winnipeg and the rest of Manitoba.

According to a University of Winnipeg report, about 135,000 of the population of Winnipeg (Canada’s seventh largest city) is at risk of becoming homeless. Winnipeg itself has 7600 `hidden’ homeless, 1,915 short-term or crisis sheltered people and 350 living on the streets.

Currently, the government of Manitoba is unable to look after the homeless in its own capital.

We give the same advice to other provincial premiers (especially Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne) and to the gross hypocrites on the municipal councils of Toronto, Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal and other so-called “sanctuary” cities. Looking after people who call themselves refugees may give Canada’s useful “municipal idiots” some temporary noble and heroic delusions. It will definitely win them congratulations from the immigration lobby who are constantly looking for fools to support them.

But the “useful idiots” should remember that the immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, immigration consultants and ethnic advocates) consists of the foulest-smelling sludge in the immigration advocacy cesspool. Most of the lobby pretend to be protectors of the world’s persecuted, but they do what they do to maintain their jobs, increase their personal financial gain and to betray Canada. As for their clients, most of them are here to plunder Canada.

For details of the University of Winnipeg report, see

Attention Immigration Reformer : posted Mar 9/17
As you have probably seen, several demonstrations have occurred in the past few days about the M-103 motion and the illegal border crossers.
We want to organize several more demonstrations either at the Canada–U.S.A border or at City Halls in a few locations. But, if we are to do that, we need people to commit to showing up !!!
THIS IS A VERY URGENT MATTER !!!  Trudeau, Goodale, most MP’s, most premiers and municipal officials are doing nothing  and will continue to be useless. We need a show of strength. Are you willing to help? The most pressing thing you can help with is your attendance. If you cannot attend, please send us a donation to help pay for signs, banners, flyers, etc.

Dan Murray
Immigration Watch Canada

Seniors Can’t pay heat or light while Muslims get thousands from Trudeau! Posted Feb 28/17 ( smart meter criminality also Tami)

WAKE-UP CALL. . . & INTERESTING!!!!! posted Feb 27/17



















(All this while Canadians are not given jobs, live in poverty, can’t find low income housing, can’t find a doctor or government support are turned down for Employment insurance, Disability Benefits and live on the street! Treasonous breach of trust comes to mind here! Tami)

…..and after 10 years of residency you get OAS and then can leave and go ( OAS is old age security Tami)
back where you came from and collect it for life!!!!



Iqra Khalid’s Threat to Canadian Freedom of Speech posted Feb 25/17 ( This situation is why I say people who are not born here should never be allowed in our government Tami)

By: Gerry T. Neal

 Iqra Khalid with “new Canadians.” Eurocanadians must be prohibited from questioning Islamization; meanwhile, the media and universities are allowed to spread hatred against Whites, vilifying them as “racists” and “supremacists” under the protection of ‘free speech’…

Antonia Blumberg, the Associate Religion Editor for the progressive liberal disinformation site that some consider to be the online equivalent of a newspaper, the Huffington Post, has come to the defence of the anti-“Islamophobia” motion that Iqra Khalid, the Liberal MP representing Mississauga-Erin Mills has introduced into the Canadian Parliament. In doing so she has lived down to the stereotype, popular here in the Dominion of Canada, of the Yankee who spouts off about things of which she knows nothing.

The Totalitarian Nature of the “Human Rights Commission”

Regardless of whether it is a non-binding motion or a bill, there is a very real threat to freedom of speech here, of which anyone familiar with the Liberal Party’s long war on the traditional rights and freedoms of Canadians would be well aware. There are many parallels between what the Liberal Party is doing now and what it did in the 1970s under the leadership of the father of the present federal premier. Then, as now, it decided that it was the government’s place to combat ideas and attitudes that the Liberals considered to be unacceptable. At the time it was racial and religious prejudice in general, and anti-Semitism in particular that the Liberals were going after. Warning Canadians that the threat of a potential Canadian Fourth Reich existed if these attitudes were not drummed out, stomped down, and extirpated with extreme prejudice, the Liberals, bereft of any sense of irony, established a Canadian equivalent of the Gestapo and the NKVD/NKGB/MGB/KGB in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Although progressives will undoubtedly sputter with offense and rage at the comparison in the last sentence it is entirely apt and valid. The difference between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the secret police of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes is one of degree not of kind. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought you before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal you would not end up facing a firing squad or being shipped away to a forced labour camp. At most you would be fined an exorbitant and crippling amount of money, slapped with a lifetime gag order, and have your career and reputation completely and utterly destroyed. Nevertheless, the Canadian Human Rights Commission exists for the same reason its Nazi and Soviet equivalents existed — to track down and punish those considered guilty of what, in Orwellian Newspeak would be called crimethink.

It was negative thoughts about those designated as “vulnerable minorities” that the Trudeau Liberals considered to be crimethink, rather than negative thoughts about the regime itself, as was the case in the Third Reich, Soviet Union, and Orwell’s 1984, but it was crimethink all the same, and those charged with crimethink found that there was very little in the way of defence available to them. More perhaps, than was available to the unfortunate victims of the totalitarian regimes, but much less than has been traditionally available to the free subject-citizens of one of Her Majesty’s realms. The Liberals were able to get away with this by classifying the legislation — the Canadian Human Rights Act — which the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal enforced as civil rather than criminal law. Civil law does not come with the same legal protections of the rights of the defendant that exist under criminal law. The progressive supporters of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its enforcing bodies deceive themselves, however, if they think this legislation exists to help people settle disputes among themselves, and not to punish people whose thoughts are considered criminal by the “Natural Ruling Party of Canada” as the Grits so arrogantly designate themselves.

The Stupidity of the “Fire!” Analogy

Blumberg, citing the CBC, quotes Justin Trudeau as saying, in defence of Khalid’s motion “You’re not allowed to call ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie theater and call that free speech.” This is not a valid comparison however, no matter how many times freedom-hating, totalitarian dolts make it. When you yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, you can create a panic in which people hurt or even kill people in their rush to get out. It is the act of mischief that is proscribed by law, not the idea expressed (“there is a fire in this theatre”). Indeed, if that idea were true, if there actually was a fire in the theatre, we would want that information to be conveyed, albeit in a more orderly fashion.

A law prohibiting so-called “hate speech” is not like this. If the Liberal Party passes a motion condemning “Islamophobia” and saying that the government must do everything in its power to combat “Islamophobia,” a hate speech law will be the next step they take. There is abundant evidence in their past track record to show this to be the case. It is the way they think. Such laws exist for one purpose, and one purpose only, to say “you are not allowed to think this or that.”

The argument that says that “hate speech” also hurts people like yelling “fire” in a theatre because it can inspire someone to commit acts of violence is spurious, specious and downright mendacious. If one person expresses a negative view of a race, religion, sex or whatever, and another person who has heard this commits a violent act against a member of the group in question, it will not be an immediate, automatic, response like the panic in the theatre. It will involve someone thinking about the negative view expressed, deliberating on it, and concluding that violence is the right way to act on this information. Such a conclusion suggests that there was something wrong in this person’s head already, long before he heard the “hate speech.” Which is why “hate speech” is much less likely to produce a violent crime than calling “fire” in a theatre is likely to produce a panic. It would be more defensible, perhaps, to argue that speech that explicitly calls for a violent response, of the general “kill the ******s” type, ought to be proscribed, but the “hate speech” that is prohibited by such laws is never limited to just this, and at any rate, this sort of thing was already covered by the laws against incitement that have been around since long before someone dreamed up the idea of laws against hate and which are far better laws being designed to protect everyone and not some designated group.

The Liberal Approach Is Anti-Canadian

What the Liberal Party has done in the past in the name of combating racism and protecting “vulnerable minorities,” however worthy we may or may not consider these goals to be in themselves, is completely unacceptable in a country like Canada. It is now 150 years since men like Sir John A. MacDonald established Canada as a self-governing Dominion under the British Crown, with legislative and judicial institutions grounded in the tradition attached to the Crown, including all the rights and freedoms of the Common Law. The right way to protect “vulnerable minorities” in our country, would have been to do a better job of making sure that the full protection of these rights and freedoms was enjoyed by all of Her Majesty’s citizen-subjects in our free Dominion, whatever their race, ethnic origin, etc. might happen to be. Instead, the Liberal Party opted to give special protection to “vulnerable minorities” and to abridge the traditional rights and freedoms of all Canadians to do so, while doing everything in their power to undermine our British heritage and the tradition from which those rights and freedoms sprang.

It is evident to every patriotic Canadian who loves his country, its true heritage, and its traditional freedoms, and is aware of what is going on that the Liberal Party is preparing to do more of the same, even if an ignorant Yank writing for a silly left-wing trash site is completely clueless as to what is going on.

Trump 100% Right about immigration problems in Sweden! Posted Feb 24/17

TRUMP 100% RIGHT! The Media Does NOT Want You To See The 2-Minute Video From Sweden… 

Justin Trudeau Globalist agenda working with George Soros to undermine our Canadian Sovereignty and Values ways of life in favour of Unwanted Muslim Sharia Law in Canada must see! Now trying to take away our right to free speech though government bill! This is why I say no one who is not born here should ever be allowed in our government! Tami Posted Feb 23/17


Attention Immigration Reformer: Muslim Hate towards rights of Canadians! posted Feb 21/17

(1) PLEASE HELP US TO GET MORE SIGNATURES FOR THE FREE SPEECH PETITION. As of Monday, Feb. 20, that petition had about 22,600 signatures.  Thank you for your help. This significant figure has been noticed by the political class, particularly the Conservatives who are scrambling to recognize the indignation of Canadians, but still haven’t got the guts to deal with the root problem WHICH IS UNNECESSARY HIGH IMMIGRATION . We need more signatures to convince them. Please help to get other people to sign. Again, here is a link to the petition :

(2) PLEASE SEND IQRA KHALID an e-mail.  Here is her e-mail address  : If you want to phone her offices, here are her phone numbers :  905-820-8814 (her office in Mississauga) or 613-995-7321 (her office in Ottawa).She is the Muslim woman who wrote the motion. Like many of her fellow Muslims and other visible minorities, she is arrogant and contemptuous of Canada.  She and they deserve the contempt of Canada’s majority population and all other decent Canadians.  BE BLUNT. Don’t phone to debate with the person who answers your call. You know what they think.  She, other Muslim MP’s and Muslim organizations across Canada want to re-make Canada in the image of the failed states where they originated..
 (3) PLEASE CONTACT TRUDEAU’S OFFICE  Here is his e-mail address : When Khalid’s motion is voted on in April, it is probable that the Liberal MP’s will approve it.  Furthermore, Sikh Liberal MP Grewal has already hinted that other measures like Khalid’s are coming. To prevent all of this from happening, here is our suggestion : Tell Trudeau to dump her motion and to expel Khalid from the Liberal Caucus. Leave a phone message at Justin Trudeau’s office in Ottawa : 1-613-995-0253  or at his Montreal office  1-514-277-6020 His Fax number is 1-613-947-0310
(4) PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL TO YOUR MP. Many  MP’s are cowardly and treacherous on all immigration-related issues. HELP THEM TO STAND UP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIVES.  When Parliament votes on Iqra’s motion in April, TELL THEM TO DEFEND CANADA AND VOTE “NO”Dan Murray
Immigration Watch Canada
By Tim Murray

It has not escaped our notice that in the wake of the Quebec city shootings the CBC has been particularly zealous in its mission to stoke the ensuing flames of hysteria about the dark undercurrent of “hate” that runs through Canadian society. The irony is that the CBC need not look afar for hate. It only needs to look in the mirror.

Of course, there are many kinds of hate—and fear. But the CBC seems to be obsessed with only the hate that some people direct toward “The Other”: outsiders, strangers and newcomers. A pathology they label as ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’, the buzzwords of our time. However, they neglect to acknowledge that there is another kind of hate that is equally pathological. The hate which the CBC amplifies . The hatred not of the stranger or newcomer, but of those closest to home, of those in one’s own national family.

It is the flip side of xenophobia: Xenophilia, the perverse love of the stranger at the expense of one’s own people. In other words, it is a hatred that masquerades as love. A misplaced ‘compassion’ that would be better apportioned to the abundant number of desperate people in their own backyard. It is an attitude manifested in an unspoken desire to weaken border control or even discard borders entirely, and open the floodgates to untold millions of refugees who would make refugees out of our own people.

This is the agenda of the immigration and refugee lobby. Their clarion call is for “migrant rights”, the rights of Canadians who wish not to be overwhelmed or displaced be damned. There is an undercurrent of hatred in Canada alright, but it is running through the immigration lobby and its voice, the CBC. It is the hatred of Canadians. And it is “Old” Canadians, not New Canadians, who bear the brunt of it.

No one better articulates this hate than immigration lawyers, whom the CBC regards as a font of knowledge and expertise on immigration matters. The latex paint on any front page story about immigrants or refugees never gets dry before the CBC hands the mic to an immigration lawyer for sage advice and analysis. This is akin to asking a drug lord to comment on the virtue of free injection sites.

What the CBC fails to understand is that immigration lawyers are not objective observers. They have a vested interest in promoting any policy that would generate more clients. The more refugee and immigrant applicants the better. To present these immigration policy pimps as noble advocates for the global poor and persecuted is more than galling. It is outrageous. The “expertise” that they possess is the mastery of lining their pockets with the proceeds of what amounts to a glorified people-smuggling racket. Rather than being beatified as tribunes for the downtrodden, they should be vilified for their part in enabling the successful settlement of thousands of false refugee claimants whose seeming desire is to remake Canada into the image of the third world shithole they left. An enterprise which grovelling politicians are too eager to call cultural “enrichment”.

It is no wonder that most Canadians liken lawyers to the toxic effluent that flows into a sewage treatment plant. Immigration lawyers would be those concentrated chunks that emit the strongest stench. That is the cesspool of hate that the CBC should wade into.

Instead, our taxpayer-funded broadcaster prefers to search through the pool of ‘deplorables’ from which they say the Quebec City shooter emerged. All to prove that Canada is a seething cauldron o f hate on the verge of boiling over. This is all in keeping with the CBC’s depiction of Canadian history as an unending trail of evils committed by European settlers and their descendants, who must atone for past sins by capitulating to the demands of the immigration and lavishly funded ethno-cultural industry. The end game is to persuade their audience to internalize the full measure of guilt and self-hatred that the CBC purveys, with the understanding that the logical conclusion of hate turned inward is suicide. In this case, national suicide through population replacement. Whereas Trump campaigned to put “America First”, it has been the CBC’s longstanding campaign to put “Canada Last”.

This means that for the CBC and the pro-immigration advocates they interview, the views of the resident majority population who question their agenda are of no account, and that any politician who would dare to give voice to them will be ritually defamed and demonized. Just ask Kellie Leitch.

If the CBC believes that they will be rewarded for their treason when Canada is under “new management”, they would do well to ponder the fate of the “Kapos”, the Jews who thought that they could gain an exemption from murder by helping the Nazis to supervise and bully other inmates in the death camps. These collaborators only earned their masters’ contempt and a temporary stay of execution. We can be assured that once the invaders are in the drivers’ seat, they will quickly dispense with their useful idiots at the CBC.

I would rather they suffer a different fate. I would rather see Canadian taxpayers pull the plug on the whole lot of them. Give the Pinkos the Pink Slip. The CBC and the ethno-cultural organizations that suck from taxpayers’ tits should be de-funded and cut loose to fend for themselves. Trafficking in the hatred of Canada and the founding peoples who built it is not the kind of business that we should be subsidizing.

The CBC should know that despite the many injuries that they have inflicted upon them, Canadians are not yet ready to die. As battered and bruised as they are from relentless open-borders propaganda, they are yet ready to beg to put out of their national misery. Instead, they have another message: Tell the Jack Kevorkian of Canadian broadcasting, the CBC, to off itself.

Let’s look at how our CBC has accelerated its “HATE CANADA” campaign in the past two weeks.

(1) For years, the CBC has given free broadcast time to a large group of predatory immigration lawyers who regularly assault Canada with their Hate Canada propaganda. In the past few weeks, the CBC has gone completely wild with this practice. Generally, Canadians think of lawyers as the profession that is the least likely to consist of heavenly-born fibre. Similarly, Canadians think of immigration lawyers as those who consist of the least virtuous fibre of all of God’s creations. Yet the CBC presents these lawyers as “EXPERTS” on the immigration issue and as the noble defenders of the world’s persecuted. The truth is that the only thing these lawyers are “EXPERTS” in is the manipulation of the law in order to enlarge the size of lawyer bank accounts. The only thing they defend is their profits. The other truth is that these immigration lawyers have simultaneously worked tirelessly with the sludge in the rest of the immigration lobby to saddle Canadians with the enormous costs (up to $35 Billion per year) of subsidizing up to 7 million regular immigrants that Canada never needed. In addition, since the mid-1980’s when the notorious Singh Decision gave many foreigners a status virtually equal to that of Canadians, they have enabled hundreds of thousands of false refugee claimants of Chinese, Sri Lankan, Sikh, Muslim and other origin to worm their way into Canada and to parasitize this country. The tragedy for Canada is that a significant number of these people want to re-make Canada into a carbon copy of the economic, cultural and environmental disasters they slithered out of.

(2) In the past two weeks, matters have become much worse. The CBC has treated the Quebec City shootings as a virtual mother-lode for its own HATE CANADA campaign. It has used the shootings to portray the shooter as another one of a horde of Canadian “deplorables” and Canada as a seething hell of hate. This fits in with past CBC behaviour. For years, the CBC has presented Canada’s history as an unending trail of evil. This is all part of the CBC’s plan to convince Canadians that the only way they can atone for the CBC’s version of Canada’s past is to commit the ultimate act of self-hatred : National Suicide. To speed up that process, the CBC has implied that all Canadians should adopt the CBC’s quisling behaviour. In fact, The CBC has actually deluded itself into thinking that slithering in front of large numbers of immigrants and refugees who want to destroy Canada will somehow make those enemies love the CBC and Canada. The truth is that these enemies will have even more contempt for Canada and the CBC. Inevitably, the message that CBC indignity and groveling sends is that Canada should accept a NATIONAL POPULATION REPLACEMENT PLAN. In contrast to Trump’s “AMERICA FIRST” policy, the CBC and the rest of the immigration lobby want to entrench a “CANADA LAST” policy here. To the CBC and the other immigration lobby parasites, this means that Canada’s majority population does not count, Canada’s borders should be dissolved, any foreign national leader such as Trump who actually defends his country should be characterized as Satan and Canada should allow itself to be overwhelmed.

For hundreds of acts of HATE SPEECH and BETRAYAL, Canada’s Biggest Hate Speech HUCKSTER (the CBC), Canada’s immigration lawyers and the rest of the parasitic immigration lobby deserve to be thoroughly purged, de-funded and thrown out of their offices. (Also need to be permanently deported from our country Tami)

Dan Murray

What  they don’t want you to know about Mosque attack in Quebec Media spin! Posted Feb 9/17

Dear “free speech” petition signer, Posted Feb 9/17 please sign petition!

As a signatory of the petition, “Your Canadian Right to Free Speech is at Risk”, you have shown yourself to be a citizen concerned with the very real possibility of losing a hard won, fundamental freedom.  Your participation in the fight for free speech is timely for now, with the Quebec City attack of 29 January, we find ourselves at a tipping point in the battle.  The forces in favour of curtailing your free speech rights now include our own political class.  The Premier of Quebec, for example, has likened words to “knives that slash at people’s consciousness” and then went on to proclaim “Allahu Akbar” at a ceremony honouring the fallen in the Quebec attack.  These kneejerk proclamations from our political elites are unfortunate as they create division between those who see their rights slipping away and those who promote such an eventuality by advocating for the criminalization of criticising all things Islamic.   

Is it any wonder that Canadians from all walks of life are coming together, through petitions such as the one you signed, to condemn the short sightedness of our leaders and quash “Islamophobia” initiatives aimed at crushing free expression.  More is required, though, as the adversaries of free speech are powerful, ingrained in our Government and have the ear of the Canadian media.  Time is very short as the Government will be voting on the M-103 “Islamophobia” motion on 16 February, 2017.  Please consider renewing your call to protect free speech in Canada now by participating in the letter-writing campaign detailed below.  This campaign is being organized on a nation-wide basis and stands to really get the attention of targeted Members of Parliament central to progressing or rejecting the attack on free speech.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Major (Ret’d) Russ Cooper


ACTION ALERT: Canadian Parliamentarians are about to sign  Motion M-103 into law which threatens our basic rights and freedomsThe vote is on Feb. 16, next week – PLEASE HELP!
– sample letter below…  


Two motions are before Parliament which threaten our basic right to freedom of speech – the first an ePetition E-411 was unanimously approved – the second Motion M-103 is to be voted on Feb. 16.


‘Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East’, a group supporting Sharia Law, just posted that they are winning!

We need everyone’s help in countering this posturing. Letters make a difference. SAMPLE LETTER BELOW! Our thanks to those who have already written…

The recent terrible attack on a mosque in Quebec is tragic and should be condemned but this should not be politicized to limit and deny Canadians our basic rights as set out in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  

The two motions are:

1. “E” Petition E-411

Tabled Oct. 26, 2016 by Thomas Mulcair, NDP, condemning all forms of Islamophobia – it could trigger Sharia blasphemy laws (as in Europe), or at least claims, which would be extremely damaging. Canada already has hate speech laws. Hate speech toward Muslims or any religion is already covered under these laws.

2. Iqra Khalid Motion M-103
Tabled Dec. 1, 2016, this motion called for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to produce findings and recommendations within 240 days from acceptance. This motion could lead to criminal legislation, Sharia blasphemy laws, regarding one religion, Islam, already protected under our Charter and Criminal Law.
This Petition was prepared by Major (Ret’d) Russ Cooper, a Royal Canadian Air Force Veteran and Security expert.   


2. Letters have a BIG impact on MPs 

Please write an email to your MP.

See sample letter below   
Letters must be brief!
  • 3-4 sentences
  • Articulate (check spelling and grammar)
  • In your own words (include your address and Postal Code)

If you can, please forward me a copy of your letter so that I can assess our effectiveness…sahaber@gmail. com

–  please do not copy – put into your own words! MPs discard copied letters! JUST WRITE: PLEASE DO NOT ADOPT MOTION M-103! (and add a couple of your own words.) 
Dear (Mr., Ms, Honourable) ____ (your MP)

The recent terrorist attack in a mosque in Quebec was a tragedy but this terrible event should not be politicized. I am very concerned about two motions that are presently before Parliament, E-411 WHICH SHOULD BE RESCINDED and M-103 WHICH SHOULD BE DEFEATED. No group should be given special privilege as this would put further limits on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our Charter already provides laws for hate speech and hate crimes. NO further protection is needed.
Please make sure to rescind these motions.
Please do NOT adopt M-103 which could be very damaging to our society.

I look forward to an immediate reply to my concerns.

Yours very truly,
(Your name – be sure to add your Postal Code for authenticity and your address)
It is important to send a copy of your letter to each of the following:
Hon Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice:
Hedy Fry Chair, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:
Larry Maguire, Vice-Chair, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:
Pierre Nantel, Vice-Chair Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage:
– see articles below as well
  • The recent terrorist attack in Quebec was a terrible tragedy and a despicable act.
  • This attack should not be politicized and used as an excuse to pass the present motions before Parliament – our rights and freedoms enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are too precious to limit in any way.
  • Concern about the future welfare of our country Canada
  • To support and shelter one religion or designated group from criticism will certainly curtail the fundamental rights of all Canadians to express themselves freely.
  • Religion is already protected under our Charter and under Criminal Law (i.e. hate crimes).
  • Members of Parliament must vote to rescind both E Petition E-411 and DEFEAT Motion M-103 – must NOT be adopted
  • As well, the Green Paper, organized by the NCCM, should NOT be used as a guide – the NCCM, formerly CAIR.Canada, allegedly has links to CAIR USA
  • Our government should obtain advice from progressive Muslims such as Raheel and Sohail Raza of Muslims Facing Tomorrow or Farzana Hassan former president of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
Written by Major (Ret’d) Russ Cooper, it includes information on his expertise, as well as, an analysis of the motions to help Members of Parliament understand the threat to our liberty. The Petition is based on this letter.
This brief article written by a friend (name withheld by request), is also an excellent source of information explaining the real meaning behind both motions before Parliament and how they could impact our Freedom of Speech.
by Sohail Raza in GATESTONE INSTITUTE Newsletter  Sohail Raza is a Board Member of The Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow – this article broadens our understanding of the issue.
By Thomas Quiggin – January 31, 2017

Mr. Quiggin provides a list of the American and Canadian organizations with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Apparently, the NCCM formerly known as CAIR.CAN has been involved in presenting the two motions above as well as a ‘green paper’ to our Canadian Parliament. If this is true it is very serious.

“Given the current Government’s stated goal of obtaining a seat at the United Nations Security Council, pressures from within and outside the country from powerful Islamic lobby groups, and the Canadian Government’s demonstrated proclivity to advance the “Islamophobia” initiative with undue haste and in the absence of evidence, there is a real risk that the fundamental right to free speech by all Canadians will be unnecessarily curtailed to accommodate the sensibilities of a special interest group.”

– Major Ret’d Russ Cooper

Shirley Anne Haber

5  secrets  the  media  won’t  say  about  Trump’s  immigration  order posted Feb 9/17

January 30, 2017
President Donald Trump is vigorously defending his immigration restrictions, as angry protests spread throughout the country saying “this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Trump released a statement Monday asserting, “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban as the media is falsely reporting.”

He’s right.

Despite the mainstream media outcry, the administration’s move is totally legal.

In fact, it’s actually very standard… and that truth is what the media is hiding in their condemnation of Trump.

Actually, it’s five truths. Because five out of the last six presidents of the United States have done almost the same exact thing.

Where was the media outrage when former President Barack Obama banned Iraqi immigrants in 2011 for six months, and in 2012 barred the entry of persons that have worked with the Iranian and Syrian government?

Where was this fury when former President George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton each used the authority six times; Clinton banned Haitians in 1991 and residents of Serra Leone in 1998, if they were related to anyone involved in that country’s ruling government – where were the accusations of racism from Democrats?

Former President Ronald Reagan used this same authority five times; the media won’t mention that, of course.

And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter used it to ban Iranians from entering the United States. His executive order suspended “all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States,” and said the U.S. government “will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires.”

Trump’s order, which also suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and indefinitely bars the processing of refugees from Syria, has sparked widespread protests and denunciations from the same Democrats and talking heads in the mainstream media that cheered Carter and Obama and Clinton’s actions.

And they’re ignoring the truth – this has been done many, many times in the past.

It’s totally legal, according to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

To their credit, the Trump administration has remained unfazed by the unfair coverage.

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression,” Trump said, “but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

“I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria,” he said. “My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help those who are suffering.”

In a background call with reporters Sunday, a senior administration official declared the order’s implementation “a massive success story,” claiming it had been done “seamlessly and with extraordinary professionalism.”

The Associated Press contributed to this article

Dan Murray

Saint Thomas Aquinas Would Not Have Allowed the Muslim Brotherhood and Its Sympathizers Into His Country Posted Feb 9/17

​​​​​Parts of the U.S. and Canadian populations are now in a state of semi-hysteria over Donald Trump’s recent announcement that the U.S. will temporarily restrict the entry of refugees from Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries. Another order will block visas from being issued to people from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. According to a Reuters report, the “restrictions on refugees are likely to include a multi-month ban on admissions from all countries until the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security can make the vetting process more rigorous”.

Trump’s announcement is a legitimate response to Muslim attacks in a number of American cities (particularly Orlando, Florida and San Bernardino, California) as well as to similar attacks in Europe.

Before some Canadians and Americans descend into complete hysteria, they should all take a few tranquilizers and read the following link to an article by American scholar and researcher John Horvat 11 who provides some long-term perspective on the immigration issue. : “What does Saint Thomas Say About Immigration”

As early as the 1200’s, Saint Thomas Aquinas, who is recognized as one of Christianity’s and the West’s greatest theologians and philosophers, warned immigrant-receiving countries not to accept immigrants who would try to undermine their societies. Aquinas’s precedents came from Israel in Old Testament times.

Here is Saint Thomas’ reason for making this statement : “… if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

For details on what Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote about immigration, see John Horvat’s article :

Both naive and informed Americans, Canadians and citizens of all Western countries should also read the following excerpt from a Muslim Brotherhood document written in the 1990’s and widely-circulated in the Western World.



Mass Immigration Serves Politics, Not Canadians posted Jan 7/17

A couple of prominent members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet told me that their government’s immigration policies had been “purely in the interest of the party,” which logically means that they were not in the public interest. There is no doubt that the recently announced increases in immigration by Minister of Immigration John McCallum are also purely the interest of the Liberal party.


So how do politicians get away with making immigration policies that advance their own interests at the expense of the general public? The Liberals just showed us how to do it: Appoint a commission of experts with a fancy name like Advisory Council on Economic Growth, staff it with people you know to be in favour of vastly more immigration, publicize the council’s recommendation, and wait for some Libertarians like Terrance Corcoran and Andrew Coyne to support it enthusiastically in the mass media.


Then have the Minister of Immigration appear moderate and wise by announcing an increase in immigration by only 15.4 per cent, from 260,000 to 300,000, rather than the 73 per cent to 450,000 recommended by the council.


How does mass immigration serve the interests of political parties? It brings financial and electoral support from employers who profit from being able to employ low-skilled and high-skilled labour at wages that are lower than what they would have to pay for Canadian workers. Electoral support also comes from the owners of real estate, developers and brokers, construction workers and mortgage brokers who gain much from the increased business immigrants bring.


Parties also gain support from immigrant communities who expect to gain political and economic clout, enjoy having family members join them, and benefit from larger markets for ethnic products and media. Support also comes from the large “immigration industry” of social workers, lawyers and language teachers who are paid by the government.


These groups benefiting from mass immigration lobby the government effectively, while the general public is unorganized and does not. To the contrary, the public is lobbied by the government, which issues a constant flow of propaganda about the alleged economic and social benefits from mass immigration and suppresses the distribution of fact-based accounts of the negative effects.


The government also issues highly misleading information about the 172,500 “economic migrants” who will be selected in 2017 for their likely economic success. In fact, assuming an average family size of four, only 43,125 of them will be truly economic immigrants, the rest will be their spouses and children. Many will later be joined by their parents and grandparents, who will number 20,000 in 2017 and contribute very little to the economy.


The success of this shielding was revealed on the occasion of a recent Munk debate at the University of Toronto, which pitted advocates in favour against advocates against admitting more refugee claimants. In a poll taken before the debate, 75 per cent of the audience wanted more refugees. After the debate and the presentation of facts by the con-side, only 55 per cent of the audience still held that view, a figure likely to become even smaller as the audience digests the facts more fully.


Information about many negative effects of mass immigration is kept from the public. For example, recent immigrants, even after many years in Canada, have lower incomes and pay lower taxes while they absorb the same government services as Canadians. As result, immigrants impose a fiscal burden of $30 billion a year on taxpayers, which will grow all the time with the arrival of new immigrants. For a perspective on this figure, consider that there is much debate over the affordability of spending $30 billion to renew the Canadian navy over the next 30 years!


Canadians suffer from the effects immigrants have on the cost of housing and the levels of congestion, pollution and overcrowding in schools, universities and hospitals, the latter especially as the many parents and grandparents of immigrants near the end of their lives and add to the ever-growing wait lists for medical treatment experienced by all Canadians.


Immigrants reduce the unfunded liabilities of the Canada Pension Plan, but only for a limited time since they have the same age profile as Canadians and as they age stop paying premiums and receive benefits.


Immigrants raise the total size of national income but not of individual Canadians since immigrants’ pay matches their contribution to output. The gains from the so-called “opportunities to trade” are very small, as are the claimed gains due to economies of scale in production since manufacturers and mining companies already access world markets enabled by free trade and low transportation costs.


Immigrants increase Canada’s cultural diversity, but the benefits from it have reached diminishing returns and the development of ethnic enclaves threatens national harmony and security.


These and other facts about the detrimental effects of mass immigration on the well being of Canadians are well documented by government statistics and academic research. Unfortunately, governments and the beneficiaries of mass immigration have prevented these facts from reaching wide audiences and allowing political parties to continue to use mass immigration policies for their narrow self-interest.


However, the election of President Donald Trump shows that there is a limit to these policies. At some point, suffering workers and taxpayers will vote for politicians who promise to put their interests above those of a political party, business and other groups. Voters in many countries of Europe have already done so. Could McCallum’s announced higher immigration levels have the same result in Canada?


Herbert Grubel is a professor of economics (emeritus) at Simon Fraser University.


This article was published on Dec. 12, 2016 in The Vancouver Sun

Truthful History of Islam must see! 1400 shocking years of Islam in 5 minutes – Muslims are scared of this!!!   Posted Jan 7/17
Attention Immigration Reformer: DISHONESTY SHOULD NOT BE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP.” posted Jan 5/17
On behalf of Immigration Watch Canada, we would like to thank you for signing our most recent petition: “DISHONESTY SHOULD NOT BE A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP.”
The purpose of this petition was to help stop the practice of birthright citizenship, wherein pregnant mothers come to Canada expressly for the purpose of having their babies in Canada.
Every developed country in the world except Canada and the United States has ended this law in order to stop abuse and fraud.

After a long-winded process, the House of Commons has issued an official response, which can be seen below.

Should you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at or by calling 1-778-803-5522.

( Notice the response is from a immigrant in government who do not care about what white Canadians feel about policies and is why I say immigrants should not be able to vote or hold positions in our government due to criminality against our values laws and rights of white Canadians from experience. Tami)
Multiculturalism = A Doctrine From the Pits Of Hell posted Dec 24/16
Multiculturalism’s War Against Christmas and Western Culture.
(1) Canada years ago adopted the doctrine of multiculturalism, which in my opinion is a doctrine from the pits of hell itself. We have handcuffed ourselves, walking all over our traditions (such as celebrating Christmas) because of it. By accepting this practice, we no longer think it politically correct to talk about Christmas. In fact, we no longer think it right to ever publicly talk about Jesus Christ, or God or matters of faith. I really believe we have sold out hook, line and sinker to Satan himself. (Ed Ostrom, Retired Salvation Army Officer In Saskatchewan)

(2) The term “multicultural” has come to mean “relentless high immigration or mass immigration” which, in turn, has become an all-out assault on Canada’s deep-rooted majority population and its traditions such as Christmas. Most Canadians will accept small numbers of people from ethnic backgrounds that are different from Canada’s majority population, but most Canadians do not  want to become a minority in this country.  In other words, most Canadians see that the word “multicultural” is a description not of who we are, but a prescription of what we are going to become—–whether we want it or not. (Immigration Watch Canada)

(3) Let’s press our politicians to start saying “Merry Christmas!” again the way President-Elect Donald Trump has said he would, stating: “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying Merry Christmas again.” This is the kind of politician we need in Canada, unafraid to take on the insidious attacks by cultural Marxists on our traditions and nationality. “Happy Holidays” may seem to be an innocuous “tolerant” phrase, but it is nothing but a calculated assault on our Christian and European heritage in order to create a deracinated global place occupied by millions of Africans, Mestizos, Muslims and Asians trampling upon Eurocanadians. (Ricardo Duchesne, UNB Professor of Sociology)
(4) The War Against Christmas, and against Christianity in America, is part and parcel of the campaign to transform America, against the wishes of most Americans. It is of a piece with mass immigration. As Peter Brimelow (author of “Alien Nation”) says of immigration,  “America is being transformed against our will, and for no reason.” (Howard Sutherland, New York Attorney)
(5) The multiculturalists justify their assault on Christmas by claiming that the public celebration of Christmas causes non-Christians to feel left out. …We cannot forever shield non-Christians from the reality that they are a minority in America…. Suppressing the observances of the majority seems a high price to pay to allow overly sensitive souls to live in a comfortable delusion. Again and again, those seeking to erase Christmas …offer “diversity” and its variants as their justification. But, in practice, “diversity” and “inclusion” mean uniformity and exclusion, as Christian symbols are removed from public spaces. (Tom Piatek, A Contributing Editor of Chronicles Magazine and Taki’s Magazine and author of  “Yes, Virginia, There Is A War Against Christmas”)

CBC’s Fundraisers for Food Banks: One Good Deed Does Not Erase A Daily Diet Of Lies Posted Dec 22/16 

Tim Murray

Don’t get me wrong. Helping food banks across Canada is a good thing. But raising millions of dollars worth of donations on their behalf does not expiate the sins of the CBC, any more than Al Capone did when he gave generously to the Catholic Church in his Chicago diocese, or a drug cartel would do by funding an addiction treatment centre.  And what were those sins, you ask? Let us count the ways.

(1)  The CBC is primarily guilty of the sin of omission, a major flaw in an organization that purports to provide the news. It tells what Mark Twain called “The Silent Lie”, that is, it fails to reveal that the federal government’s policy of mass immigration has played a pivotal role in propelling Metro Vancouver’s house prices toward the stratosphere, well beyond the reach of even the most well-paid professionals. This failure cannot be adequately defined as negligent. It is disgraceful. Treasonous in fact.  After all, the job of a public broadcaster funded by the people should be to serve the people, not blind them.

(2)  The  CBC, in its determination not to blow the whistle on mass immigration, has in effect  become a junior partner to the real estate industry. Already notorious as the propaganda arm of the immigration lobby, the CBC perpetuates the real estate line that the root of Vancouver’s housing crisis is LACK OF HOUSING SUPPLY. In fact, the root cause is RELENTLESS IMMIGRATION DEMAND.  The DEMAND serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of developers and real estate speculators and weaken the bargaining leverage of Canadian-born workers who must compete in a flooded labour market. ( there is really no competition when a treasonous government quietly slide immigrants into jobs Canadians do not even know about Tami)

(3) The CBC has provided a podium for ethnic lobbyists and grievance-mongers whose apparent mission is to denigrate or ignore the achievements of Canada’s two European-founding cultures. Listeners to the CBC would get the impression that Canadians of European origin never did anything of positive value to Canada. They are subjected to what seems to be a steady diet of how discriminatory our ancestors were, and how discriminatory their descendants continue to be. Of course, in the CBC’s world, racism and discrimination are a one-way street. However, many of us are left with one persistent question :  If  Canadians of European origin made such a mess of Canada, why have so many non-Europeans sought to make their home here? It’s a question CBC never asks—or answers. In light of the flagrant  indignities which a kneeling CBC performs each day on ethnic organizations, it is a wonder that stronger laws against public obscenity have not been implemented. After all, there are children watching and listening to these broadcasts.

(4)  The CBC, while keen to highlight the needs of immigrants for language training and job preparation skills, is indifferent to the needs of Canadian workers whose jobs are displaced and wages suppressed by cheap imported labour.  Canadians are being squeezed at both ends. Thanks to mass unnecessary immigration, they can’t find affordable housing. And thanks to mass immigration, they can’t earn enough income to make a down payment. However, immigrants have two advocates, each of them the recipients of $1 billion of federal tax money: the immigrant services bureaucracies and the CBC.  Two parasites deserving of the axe and of a Messiah to cleanse Canada’s Temple of those who defile it.

(5)  The CBC’s programming at times is like a long commercial extolling the benefits of cultural “diversity” and  various “heritage” days for ethnic and religious minorities. But the CBC is mute about the ongoing destruction of priceless heritage houses in the city. These are houses that most Canadians would love to live in, but having been priced out of the housing market, have instead had to endure the heartbreaking spectacle of mostly Sikh contractors demolishing them without sentiment or ceremony. In their stead, unsightly mega-homes that afford little space for trees, shrubs or gardens are constructed for mostly wealthy Chinese. In other words, a Chinese monoculture is displacing any trace of the heritage that Canadians built. As Joni Mitchell said, they pave paradise to put up a parking lot. Or shall we say, they obliterate paradise and call it multiculturalism.

In summary, one could say that the CBC is more like a Madison Avenue advertising agency than a news outlet.  Instead of reporting facts that might have persuaded groveling politicians to change course—or armed voters with the ammunition to bring politicians to heel—it has more or less acted as a spin doctor for the coalition of immigration lobbyists, ethno-cultural groups and self-serving realtors.  In so doing, the CBC has betrayed the interests of the very people who pay CBC salaries :  Ordinary working Canadians.


Here’s some advice for the CBC. Instead of helping food banks, try presenting the truth which would make food banks unnecessary. Try doing your damn job. The one we pay you to do.


  Flyer circulated in Richmond by Immigration Watch Canada

B.C. Premier Christy Clark who sat back and did virtually nothing as Metro Vancouver house prices soared into the stratosphere is once more demonstrating that she is a Province-Wide “Disgrace”.


She has just proclaimed that a recent flyer circulated in Richmond is a “disgrace”.


Now, dear me, we like to be polite, but if anyone is to be summarily condemned for being a disgrace,  it is Clark. Over and over for several years , she was called on to intervene in Metro Vancouver’s astronomic housing price crisis, but she and her government as well as most other politicians of every party and at every level of government engaged in gross negligence.


They claimed they did not have enough information to act, but experts have shown they had ample information to do something. Instead,  Clark took the advice of the corrupt real estate industry and let the real estate market go into a frenzy. The negligence of her and the rest of the political class has created one of the most expensive housing markets in the world.


Clark’s government has introduced a 15% tax but the damage of their gross negligence will endure. This is a grossly unjust financial burden for hundreds of thousands of Metro Vancouver residents. Unless a major economic crash occurs, that burden will last far into the future both for renters now facing escalating rents and for home owners who are now saddled with huge mortgages.


Governments which commit such crimes against their own citizens on such a basic need as shelter are not just true “disgraces” . They are criminals and deserve to be treated as criminals.


It is hard to believe that Clark and all the other politicians had  not heard about the work of UBC Professor David Ley, whose book “Millionaire Migrants” showed that relentless immigration was the major cause of astronomic house prices.


It is also hard to believe that Clark was not aware of David Ley’s revelation that there was an extremely high statistical correlation amounting to cause and effect between immigration and Metros’ high housing prices. Clark could have used Ley’s research and complained to Ottawa that Canada did not need almost all of  the immigrants it was taking and that a dramatic reduction in immigration was necessary, but she did not.


It is also hard to believe that Clark was not aware of David Ley’s revelations  about a particular kind of immigration :  the Business Immigrant Programme. That programme had resulted in several hundred thousand Business Immigrants and their families coming to Metro Vancouver.


Ley also showed that these wealthy people, most of whom were Chinese, did not fulfill their obligation to start businesses here and employ Canadians. In fact, almost all of them and their families made it clear from the beginning that they were in Canada to sit back, plunder and parasitize Canada.


It’s now time for Canada to collect the huge amounts IN BACK TAXES that it is owed by these people or to take measures to remove them.


It is also hard to believe that Clark was unaware of the revelations of   UBC Professor Daniel Hiebert. He stated these people were declaring income at the level of some of the poorest areas in Canada. This meant that they were paying little if any Income Tax and undoubtedly hiding their offshore earnings.


In other words, these big-money off-shore migrants were plundering and parasitizing Canada’s education, health and other Canadian infrastructure. For the sake of grossly negligent Clark, her government and most other politicians, Hiebert prepared a map showing where many of these new arrivals were living. Almost all were residing in the most expensive areas of Metro Vancouver in very expensive houses, some of which could be described as mansions.


It is also hard to believe that Clark and her colleagues have not heard about the investigative work done by journalists such as Douglas Todd, Kathy Tomlinson, Sam Shepherd and others who have demonstrated that our politicians and Canada’s Gatekeepers (FINTRAC, the CRA and Canada’s Department of Immigration) have allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants as well as offshore speculators to abuse Canada’s tax and immigration system in order to launder dirty money from places like China.


Former Richmond Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt was the first of only a few politicians to state that Canada was being cheated. The vast majority of politicians have been silent and have done nothing. The cheaters have interpreted politicians’ silence to mean that politicians approve of tax evasion or are afraid of offending the cheaters and fearful of endangering votes from the cheaters.


Here are some big questions for Premier Gross Negligence Clark to answer:


Does she intend to ask the police investigate UBC Professors David Ley and Daniel Hiebert, and journalists like Douglas Todd, Kathy Tomlinson and Sam Shepherd for hate crimes? That is, for revealing facts that grossly negligent, politically correct politicians hate to hear? For their shining light on the foul if not brazenly criminal actions of Wealthy Chinese cheaters? For daring to point to the Asian elephant in the room?


It is time that we forced the cheaters to pay for their tax evasion, overturned their table and cast them and their political enablers in Victoria out of B.C.’s TEMPLE.

Thousands of alleged fugitives nabbed at Canadian borders in wake of CBC News investigation posted Dec 2/16


Live in Lower Mainland? Tired of the colonization of rich foreign investors? Unaffordable housing? The ongoing struggle to maintain Canada’s official languages?  Posted Nov 25/16

 Here’s your chance to actually do something about it:
Following recent successful flyer campaigns initiated by Alt-Right groups from across the country, Immigration Watch Canada will be launching its very own blitz in the Richmond area in the coming days.
All we need you to do is roll up your sleeves and dedicate just 2 hours of your time. Not to us, but to the country you love and wish to preserve. 
If you’re up for the challenge, please respond to this email ASAP or call Dan Murray at 604-734-0070. 
We look forward to hearing from you!

It’s time to stand up for Canada, and to put an end to the colonisation of Canada by the Communist Chinese Posted Nov 21/16


By David Barswell

Since the rush to escape Hong Kong, Communist-friendly politicians of Chinese origin,  supported by Chinese political organizations, have emerged in Canada at the same time that  Canadian politicians have been co-opted, often quite openly.

Indeed, our major political parties regularly vie with each other for immigrant bloc votes, and our foreign policy is now often determined by “domestic concerns” rather than by sober consideration of Canada’s best interests.

Many of these pliable politicians, both domestic and imported, have worked knowingly or unknowingly in co-ordination with PLA intelligence operatives and others to obtain economic and political favour for China with a succession of Prime Ministers and Premiers, trade organizations, school boards and others.  Both Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper have openly praised China, and endeavoured to expand trade links.

Chinese agents have been successfully inserted into key industries, such as Ontario Hydro, with the intention of stealing nuclear and other technological secrets and handing them over to PLA intelligence operatives.

In 2000, we were told that “Chinese spies stole Canadian nuclear secrets to build a pirate copy of a research reactor invented at federal laboratories in Chalk River, Ont…. China is (now) marketing its cheap clone around the world” (5). In  2003, it was revealed that well over 3000 Chinese “spy companies” were operating in Canada and the U.S. (6).

Considerable success has been obtained in having Chinese “exchange students” reap the full benefit of Canada’s advanced educational system before taking their new-found knowledge back to the mainland, together with the insertion of propaganda organizations such as the China Education Association (Canada) (7), and the Confucius Institute network (8).

There has been some resistance to the latter from primarily Chinese parents. The Toronto District School Board terminated its relationship with the Confucius Institute just last year.

Equally of concern are the Chinese Triads, or organised crime groupings, which are found throughout North America as well as the Far East.  Sidewinder describes them as being particularly active in Vancouver, with involvements in murder, kidnapping, gambling, and loan sharking.

Sidewinder identifies the overseas Chinese diaspora as “a borderless nation, united by ties of family, clan, language and motherland.  It is estimated that there are some 60 million Overseas Chinese who contribute much to the overall strength of their ancestral homeland, providing ready-made linkages and networks (guanxi) for legal and illegal business.”

This combination of economic and political penetration threatens Canadian security and democracy in a number of ways, and the connivance of a succession of administrations in Ottawa has now culminated in our present Immigration Minister recently announcing that while in China two months ago, he lobbied officials to double or even triple the number of Canadian  visa application centres in China in an effort to open more doors for Chinese students, workers and tourists (9).

It should therefore be of little surprise to learn that the Red Chinese flag was recently raised by the “Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations” at Vancouver City Hall with Councillor Kerry Jang officiating, accompanied by Richmond East MP Joe Peschisolido – both wearing red scarves – to mark China’s National Day.

Predictably, when questions were raised about this, Jang responded “It’s rooted in ignorance and racism… To them it doesn’t matter if it’s a Communist government in China, they’re just anti-Chinese” – this, despite the fact that the primary complaints came from Chinese residents of the city.

It’s time to stand up for Canada, and to put an end to the colonisation of Canada by the Communist Chinese.

For Part 1 of The Sidewinder Report, see:


Why Trump Won Posted Nov 16/16

Trump addressing large Euroamerican crowd.

Donald Trump is president-elect, and the political establishment and the whole world is reeling. I couldn’t be happier. This was one of the great fights to the finish in American political history.

No American has ever been the target of such a sustained campaign of hatred. No presidential candidate ever had so many members of his own party openly support his opponent. No presidential candidate ever had only a handful of newspapers endorse him and most of them reluctantly. No candidate has ever had virtually the entire world’s media treating him like a clown and a fool. And yet, Donald Trump won because ordinary Americans, overwhelmingly Americans of European origin,  proved they are not the obedient zombies our rulers wish they were.

This was a vote for America as a distinct nation with a distinct people who deserve a government devoted to that people.

Donald Trump, a billionaire, was the man who said what ordinary Americans feel.

People voted for Donald Trump for a lot of reasons : they were sick of professional politicians; they resented media elites who treated them like fools; they believed free trade takes jobs away; they believed a businessman could run the economy; they were  sick of stupid foreign wars; and they liked a man who speaks his mind.

But millions of Americans of European origin voted for Donald Trump because of a dawning sense of the importance of the interests of Americans of European origin. They took notice when he pointed out that some of the Mexicans sneaking into the country are criminals. They were thrilled when he talked about building a wall. They were delighted when he said he would send home illegals, keep out  DANGEROUS Muslims,  and end birthright citizenship.

Donald Trump never said that part of America’s basic identity is its historic connection to Europe , but he has made it very clear that certain people don’t belong in America, and that is what our rulers hate most about him. Those rulers, particularly Hilary Clinton,  think everyone belongs in America. In a speech to Brazilian bankers, she said she wants the entire Western hemisphere to be borderless. Borderless! That means letting in anyone from anywhere in North and South America. That means the end of America.

In one of her high-priced speeches to Goldman Sachs, Hillary said that “American” Is not a national identity, but an “intellectual invention.” Well if it’s an intellectual invention, you don’t  even have to live in America to be American. You can sit in your shack in Somalia, believe in the invention, and you’re an American! And here’s what she told Goldman Sachs about people who don’t like third-world immigration : “they just have a backward-looking view of America, and they play on people’s fears, not on people’s hopes, and they have to be rejected, they have to be rejected, they have to be rejected because they are fundamentally un-American. Those of us who believe that Americans are a distinct people have to be rejected.”

Well Hillary, you got rejected! Actual Americans rejected the idea that America is whoever manages to sneak in. They rejected the idea that American COULD become Hispanic, or Asian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or anything at all and still be American. They rejected  the idea that the founding stock of America COULD be switched  and replaced with anyone from anywhere.  Americans of European origin do not want to become a minority in their own country.

This is the first presidential election in which Americans of European origin  began to vote like everyone else. In other words, THEY VOTED in their own interests.

American rulers take it for granted that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and OTHERS  have interests that they can push for as hard as they can. After decades of encouraging people of non-European origin  to do that, our rulers were shocked to discover that Americans of European origin have discovered they have interests too. That is Donald Trump’s great achievement : to have been the standard-bearer, even if unconsciously, of the interests of Americans of European origin.

The sleeping giant has been stirring for some time. And Mr. Trump gave it a voice and a reason to act.

Congratulations America!

Dan Murray


Attention Immigration Reformer:

For your information, Immigration Watch Canada is sending you its latest bulletin: “Why Our CBC (Canada’s Boot-licking Central) And Our Other Media Have Been So Shocked by Trump’s Victory.”


Dan Murray

Why Our CBC (Canada’s Boot-licking Central) And Our Other Media Have Been So Shocked by Trump’s Victory Posted Nov 12/16

MEDIA ARROGANCE : Our CBC and other media are not journalists. Journalists are supposed to be presenters of events. Instead, the CBC and other media are arrogant and smug ideologues who regard themselves as near Gods of Society. Those who disagree with them are blasphemers and relegated to the Lowest Circles of Hell.  The CBC and other media are  completely committed to filtering all events so that only views that agree with their ideology  get broadcast. To the CBC and other media, if something is not broadcast by them, it is because it does not agree with their ideology. In fact, it should not exist. To the CBC and other media, Trump’s views (that illegal immigration from Mexico has to end, that Muslim ideologues should be prevented from entering the U.S., or that immigration has to serve the well-being of the people of the U.S.) have to be  stopped. To achieve this result, the CBC distorts these views and edits them so that they appear contemptible. The CBC ‘s and other media’s attitude is : “How dare that Trump challenge media doctrine !! How dare he give priority to the citizens of the U.S. !! Doesn’t he know that immigration exists to create Diversity !! ”

QUESTION : Is it any wonder that CBC and other media ideologues, who refuse to give any respect to views contrary to their own treachery, completely mis-interpreted what was going on in the U.S. election campaign?

MEDIA DELUSIONS : The CBC and other  media see themselves as spokespeople for the majority. To them, Trump and his supporters were the Fringe Minority. However, the U.K.’s Brexit vote and the U.S. election have shown that the CBC and other media are the true Fringe Minority. The delusion does not end there. Every year, the Fringe Minority CBC feels it is entitled to put out its hand to receive close to $1 Billion from the Canadian public.  Then, it promptly drives its clenched other hand into the face of all Canadians. The result is an endless chain of interviews with a minority of Canada’s population : ethnic groups who want to increase their numbers ; immigration lawyers and immigration consultants who want to increase their profits. These interviews and articles are virtual boot-licking sessions that are intended to inspire more Fringe Minority attacks on Canada’s majority population. The other media are just as delusional and treacherous.

QUESTION : Is it any wonder that the CBC and other media which relentlessly tell Canadians to surrender Canada was shocked by the victory of someone like Trump who says that the U.S. should treasure its country and protect its citizens?

MEDIA LACK OF COMMON SENSE : The CBC and other media hacks don’t possess basic common sense. Such models of intellect often tell us that migrants are looking for a “better life”. They imply that all Western countries have to satisfy that demand. They insult Canadians by broadcasting views such as Canada is too “White” and suffers from “White Privilege”. This is like Canadians going to China and the Punjab respectively and saying that there are too many Chinks and Ragheads there and that Chinks and Ragheads hold too many of the jobs there. The CBC and other media never ask the logical subsequent question : “Does a better life for migrants (particularly large numbers of migrants) mean a worse life for migrant-receiving countries?” The answer is that it obviously does.

QUESTION : Is it any wonder that our media quislings should be shocked that people should actually try to defend and protect their own citizens from home-grown and foreign predators?

For years, Canada, the U.S. and many other Western countries have suffered from state-sponsored migrant invasions. The natural response of any public is to defend itself and its country. The response of the CBC and other media is to get down on their knees in order to lick the boots of the migrant invaders and to intimidate others to do the same.

The CBC and other media have damned themselves. They are arrogant, delusional and lacking in common sense. They have betrayed Canada and should be treated summarily. CBC employees should be thrown out of the publicly-owned buildings they occupy into the publicly-owned streets. They and the treacherous other media  should then be shipped off to the hell-holes they seem to love. The sooner the better.

Sidewinder – Exposing The Poisonous Snake of China’s Infiltration into Canada Part 1 Posted Nov 9/16

By David Barswell

The return of Hong Kong to China by the British resulted in a mass migration (prior to the handover date in 1997)  of Chinese entrepreneurs who did not want to live under Communism.   This stream of political and economic refugees to the West provided cover for criminals and for members of China’s intelligence services to penetrate Canada.  (1)

The joint RCMP-CSIS investigation into this massive threat to Canada’s economic and military  security, known as “Operation Sidewinder”, culminated in 1997’s Sidewinder report on “Chinese Intelligence Services and Triads Financial Links in Canada.”  (2)


The word “Sidewinder” was used deliberately. The Sindwinder is a  venomous pit-viper species found in the southwestern United States,. The word referred to the serious danger that a significant number of Chinese posed to Canada.

The targets in this on-going enterprise were largely military and economic, chosen to obtain financial and political influence in the Canadian economy and government, and to obtain high-tech information of use to the People’s Liberation Army.

The Sidewinder Report explored the extent to which the People’s Republic of China had succeeded in  penetrating Canada.  It was never released because of the explosive political implications, and the fear of a backlash from the hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin.

Sidewinder was ignored, and all copies destroyed – except for one, which a disgruntled analyst leaked to the press in a traditional brown envelope.

Sidewinder addresses the People’s Liberation Army’s use of the cover provided by the Hong Kong emigrants into Canada to insert intelligence operatives who set up businesses for a variety of purposes.

Canadian Forces defence contracts could be awarded to companies controlled by the People’s Liberation Army, and companies under Chinese government control could obtain research grants from the Canadian government, then ship the fruits of the research to China after we had paid for it.

Canada’s generosity, business-friendly policies and research subsidies, made us a sitting-duck target for China to exploit and to take almost unlimited advantage of.

And, of course, companies under Chinese government control routinely obtain political influence in Canada by making donations to our major political parties.

Here are two other examples of Mainland China’s sinister infiltration.

The Teck corporation, for example, which describes itself as “Canada’s largest diversified mining company”, donated $2.3 million to the B.C. Liberals in 2015, and interestingly enough, in July of this year, Dermod Travis of Integrity BC drew attention to Teck’s appointment of a “Chinese government official” to Teck’s board of directors in April.  Mr. Travis stated : “You have an official with a foreign government who is sitting on the board of a public company in Canada… There are a lot of people in China they could have chosen, and the fact this individual is a member of the government should set off alarm bells.” (3).

In 2012, a recently-arrived Chinese “temporary worker” hired by HD Mining International Limited filed a human rights complaint against the United Steelworkers over their campaign to stop the bringing-in of temporaries (Temporary Foreign Workers)  to work for HD, saying that union leaflets and content on the union’s website were “likely to create contempt for Chinese people” (4).

The corporation itself also threatened to sue the federal government for damages over public statements made by Ministers of The Crown about the company.


Conference Board, Century Initiative and Trudeau-Morneau Try to Deceive Canadians posted Oct 29/16

In the past month, Canadians have heard  (1) The Conference Board of Canada, (2) The Century Initiative and (3) The Trudeau-Morneau Advisory Council on Economic Growth advocate that Canada increase its immigration intake to 400,000–450,000 per year. Two are also saying that Canada should increase its population to 100 million by the year 2100.

The proposals are being made now in order to support the baseless claims made by Immigration Minister McCallum. He says that Canada should increase immigration to provide an economic stimulus, that increases in immigration will solve problems caused by our aging population, and that Canada has a labour shortage.

In fact, existing legitimate evidence completely contradicts what McCallum and all three groups say.

Here are examples of the reputable, legitimate studies which McCallum and the Trudeau government seem grossly ignorant of :

On the Labour Shortage issue, in the past two years, Ottawa’s Parliamentary Budget Office and two of Canada’s big banks have said Canada does not have a labour shortage !!! Canadians should note that even the big banks said this.

In 2006, C.D. Howe Institute demographers conducted a very detailed study which concluded that Canada should not increase immigration to solve aging population problems. If it did, the immigration increases would have to be so high (up to 7 million per year) that they would obviously create many more difficulties than they would solve.

Around 1990, the Economic Council of Canada conducted a study of every decade from Confederation to 1990. It concluded that immigration did not produce any significant economic benefit for Canadians.

In the late 1980’s, Health and Welfare Canada concluded that Canada should not increase immigration to solve aging population problems. It would be better if Canada used its own population to deal with problems caused by its aging population. In fact, an immigration intake as high as 600,000 per year would not solve aging population problems.

In 1976, The Science Council, which consisted of Canada’s best scientists, recommended that Canada stabilize its population at around 35 million. It had to limit immigration. It said that Canada did not have unlimited resources, and that it had to conserve the resources it had for its future generations. It also had to ensure its food security by not building on scarce agricultural land. Subsequent studies done by UBC’s Prospects For Sustainability in 1997 and by Ontario’s Environment Commissioner in 2005 drew similar conclusions for B.C. and Ontario respectively.

Why are The Conference Board, The Century Initiative and the Trudeau-Morneau Advisory Council making their announcements now? In the fall of every year, our Immigration Minister is required by law to announce Canada’s immigration intake for the following year. The CB, CI and TM reports are intended to  give “legitimacy” to the large increases in immigration that Immigration Minister McCallum has been hinting he will introduce on November 1.

The fact that the Trudeau–Morneau group’ is also recommending a high (450,000) immigration intake is no co-incidence. It shows that Post National Trudeau and his government have colluded with The Conference Board and The Century Project to deceive Canadians.  In fact,  it is no exaggeration to say that the reports of all three groups are based on gross ignorance of existing Canadian immigration research.

This is shocking because the Liberal government has boasted that it is committed to making “evidence-based” decisions, but if their other decisions are as weakly-based as their immigration ones, Canada’s future will not be one of “Sunny Ways”.

Canadians should be made aware that The Conference Board receives $30 million per year from Big Business in order to promote the interests of Big Business. The Century Project describes itself as  a “14-member group (which) includes institutional investors, business executives, venture capitalists, and academics”.  These groups do not represent typical working Canadians or the interests of typical working Canadians. Neither are the people who comprise the Trudeau-Morneau group.

The Liberal government should not be listening to them.

Illegal Immigration in USA Causes Environmental issue lawsuit! Posted Oct 24/16

U.S. Lawsuit Opens New Way To End Senseless Immigration


Immigration Reform Law Institute Sues Administration for Ignoring National Environmental Policy Act on Immigration

(Washington, D.C) – On October 17, 2016, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for ignoring our nation’s preeminent environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For the last 46 years, NEPA has required any agency considering an action that will affect the environment to analyze and publicize those effects. IRLI represents Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, Californians for Population Stabilization, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, and four other plaintiffs against DHS, which has failed to investigate the environmental impact of our nation’s immigration policies.

Julie B. Axelrod, IRLI’s lead counsel on the case, says, “Our lawsuit will demonstrate that legal and illegal immigration have a very significant impact on the environment, which DHS has spent the last 46 years ignoring.”

DHS, like its predecessor agency Immigration and Naturalization Service, has never considered or analyzed the enormous “impacts to the human environment” of legal and illegal immigration, as required by NEPA. Between 1990 and 2010, the US population grew by over 61 million people due to expansive immigration policies and lax enforcement–yet even over this intense period of immigration, DHS ignored NEPA’s requirement to conduct analysis on the environmental impacts. DHS regulations do not address or even acknowledge that unauthorized border crossing itself damages the environment.

Former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm of Denver, a member of one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said, “Conservatives and liberals alike should be shocked at the environmental effects of out-of-control immigration. It is environmental malpractice to ignore immigration.”

Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s Executive Director, states, “The immigration policies implemented by DHS have had an enormous impact on the environment by causing explosive population growth. Yet DHS has ignored NEPA, the bedrock of the nation’s environmental statutory framework, for decades.”


Additional information about the filed complaint can be found at the link below:

Unethical Illegal Birth immigration Posted Oct 13/16



3 months ago, we sent you an email urging you to sign a petition launched in effort to stop the practice of birthright citizenship, wherein pregnant mothers come to Canada expressly for the purpose of having their babies in Canada.

As you probably know, this costly practice is dishonest, and possibly illegal.

The federal government’s Commissioner of Petitions still has this petition up, but will expire in 2 days! It has 8747 signatures so far, but we need more in order for this to make a serious impact.


1) If you have not already signed this petition, please do so now by CLICKING HERE.

2) Forward this email to friends and family, and ask them to sign.

3) Help bring more attention to this issue by sharing the following article to social media using #endbirthtourism:

China Flag Raising in Vancouver with Asian Occupation issues! Posted Oct 12/16

Chinese Communist Flag Reigns over Vancouver

by Wong Tong

Representatives of Vancouver, Burnaby and the federal government took part in a flag-raising ceremony at Vancouver City Hall on Saturday to mark the 67th anniversary of the founding of the communist People’s Republic of China.

On Saturday, October 1, the Chinese Communist flag was raised in front of Vancouver city hall to commemorate China’s National Day. The event was organized by a group called the Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations. The event was blessed by Vancouver councillor Kerry Jang and Richmond East MP Joe Peschisolido, who stood by with solemn, and at times smiley faces, while dutifully wearing Communist red scarves.

Kerry Jang in particular has come under criticism by some Chinese-Canadians who feel offended at his seeming approval for Communist China. “I was shocked,” said Meena Wong, former mayoral candidate for COPE. “To have my city councillor in my city hall raising the flag wearing the symbol of loyalty to communism, I was dumbfounded.”

An online petition, which we at IWC encourage readers to sign, calling for Jang’s resignation, was started by the Alliance of the Guard of Canadian Values.

You can be sure this event would have gone unnoticed were it not for the reaction of Chinese-Canadians. The very Canadians who should be complaining the most, the Eurocanadians who are being rapidly dispossessed of their country, don’t realize the symbolic nature of this flag raising in pointing to the fact that a new people, the Chinese, are close to becoming the new rulers, in close association with the foreign policy objectives of China to see their race expand around the world.

Vancouver is emblematic of the manner in which many formerly Anglo or European cities across Canada are being taken over by masses of Asians, Muslims, and Africans. The area of Richmond, which used to be identified as a section of Vancouver, but which is now a city onto itself, with myriads of newly arrived immigrants, has become a veritable Chinese-occupied city.

It is understandable that Eurocanadians are hesitant to fight against the colonization of Canada by non-Europeans considering that they are dominated by an ideology that not only brainwashes them into believing that it is good for them to be offering their lands, real estate, and jobs to foreigners, but which also threatens them with job losses and ostracism if they dare to question this transformation.

Kerry Jang, possibly the most opportunistic politician in Canada, knows this, which is why he was quick to say that objections to the raising of the flag are “rooted in ignorance and racism…they’re just anti-Chinese.” Jang has made a career out of using these labels at the same time that he celebrates a Chinese government which practices racial eugenics, dispossesses Tibetans and the Uighur people of their lands, and violates the human rights of millions.

It is high time that Eurocanadians stop taking these labels seriously, particularly when they are cynically employed by an opportunist whose loyalty to Canada hinges on the acceptance by Canadians of the ideology that they are racist if they don’t celebrate Chinese migrants taking over city after city across Canada.

The Chinese government is strategically employing Chinese migrants to gain power over multiple towns, cities, provinces, and lands with rich resources across the West, in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada — not to forget numerous cities across the United States. China has a massive population, the Han people, which have been literally spilling over the world, a demographic force which the government has used throughout history as an imperial weapon. This is how imperial China was created, through the export of millions of Chinese farmers, gradually moving into other people’s lands, until they became the majority, at which point the Chinese state would impose Chinese rule and raise its flag.

The raising of this flag is a powerful symbolic testament of the ongoing occupation of Canada by millions of Chinese. There is no doubt that many Chinese who have lived in Canada for years are not political and don’t want the Chinese government to impose itself on Canada. But this demographic dynamic is beyond their feelings. Under current trends the Chinese will become a very powerful demographic force. The group which organized this flag raising, the Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations, is in fact an amalgamation of 45 BC-based Chinese organizations with a shared mission, which is to strengthen cooperation between China and Canada in economic development, trade, education, scientific research and technological development.

It is indeed a group packed with “immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, immigration agents, and student visa services.”

But it is more than the Chinese state gaining influence; it is the ever growing power of Asian groups in Canada pursuing their ethnic collective interests, and the reality that Canada is fast losing its founding Anglo/European character and acquiring a heavily Asian character.

We Eurocanadians need to be very wary of what is going on; it is happening before our eyes, the colonization of Canada by masses of immigrants, and in the case of the Chinese, colonization with the conscious backing of the Chinese state, which is only too happy to raise its flag.


Dan Murray

The Perversion of Liberalism Posted Oct 6/16

by Peter Goodchild 

Multiculturalism is based on a perverted form of liberalism. The word “liberal,” derived from the Latin word liber, “free,” goes back in the political sense over three centuries. Since the end of the Second World War or thereabouts, however, the word “liberal” has been perverted to such an extent that it now refers roughly to the opposite of its original meaning 

In a talk in Toronto on Sept. 24, 2016, Ricardo Duchesne identified four “normative factors” (any errors of interpretation, of course, are my sole responsibility): 

1. Because of the Second World War, any form of “nationalism” was discredited. Furthermore, any specific form of ethnicity or religion was downplayed, in the belief that somehow “we’re all equal.”

2. Also after the Second World War, the word “race,” especially in any sort of biological sense, was essentially outlawed.

3. Western culture in general was discredited, and Westerners were largely associated with colonialism. Reversing colonialism meant celebrating non-Western cultures. The new attitude was that “all cultures are equal.” Instead of saying to Westerners, “You gave such-and-such to us,” non-Westerners now said, “You took such-and-such from us.”

4. It was proclaimed that human “rights” and liberal ideals must be applied without distinction. All people everywhere must have the same rights regarding equality, voting, and freedom, regardless of whether these people can deal with such rights in a responsible manner.

All these demands and claims of liberalism go in the face of the historical facts. Westerners have given a great deal to the rest of the world and have much to be proud of. The great majority of scientists and discoverers were Westerners; it was Westerners who gave the world such inventions as electricity, modern transportation, and modern medicine. Earlier in history, the development of a true alphabet (and hence literacy and all that it entails), and the development of democracy (beginning with Periclean Athens), can also be largely ascribed to Westerners. And “equal individual rights” cannot simply be dropped onto cultures whose entire past is completely at variance with such “rights.” 

Other issues tie into the aforementioned four normative factors. Marxism was failing to attract Westerners, and it therefore went underground as “cultural Marxism” from which point it slowly marched through liberal institutions and perverted the original principles of liberalism. This new, occult form of Marxism then used this perverted form of liberalism to gain converts. One could also say that perverted liberalism was really just a way of attracting “the ethnic vote.” Cultural Marxism and the quest for the ethnic vote, however, are largely the same thing: one has only to look at the career of Pierre Trudeau to see this. 

Perverted liberalism also plays into an alleged economic need: to increase immigration and thereby sustain a growing economy. Again this “need” can be better explained in terms of cultural Marxism, the agenda to make Western nations into race-mixed economies with Third World wages, or the quest for the ethnic vote. Massive immigration really has little or no benefit to the country, and in fact leads to overcrowding, unemployment, and other social ills.

CALL TO ACTION: Immigrant Treasonous acts posted Oct 4/16

Request apology and resignation of Vancouver
City Councillor Kerry Jang
A 67 anniversary China National Day flag-raising ceremony was held in Vancouver City Hall at 11am on September 30, 2016. Kerry Jang, a Vancouver City Councillor and acting Mayor, hosted this gathering, raised a China national flag on the municipal flagpole wearing a red scarf. As a municipal councillor and acting Mayor, Kerry Jang raised a foreign country‘s national flag in front of the Vancouver City Hall, we think this is absolutely unacceptable. The red scarf he wore during that ceremony has a strong political implication, meaning the struggle for communism. This flag raising farce telling us that Councillor Kerry Jang is lack of basic common sense as a politician in dealing with relationship with a foreign government. His act as a city councillor during this ceremony shames the whole city of Vancouver. We request councillor Kerry Jang to apologize for his misconduct and explain how this ceremony was organized; we ask for the resignation of Kerry Jang as a Vancouver City Councillor; we also request Vancouver City Mayor Gregor Robertson to explain how this ceremony happened and if he supported this event.
Mayor Gregor Robertson
For sensible immigration policies for the 21st century.

How Canada Got Immigration Wrong: A Reply to Jonathan Tepperman


by Ricardo Duchesne

 Happier Eurocanadians?

Dreaming about Canada’s Multicultural Model

Jonathan Tepperman, opines in an article in Wall Street Journal, How Canada Got Immigration Right (September 2016), that Trump and the US generally “could learn” from how Canada has been able to produce the happiest population in the world by importing more than a quarter million immigrants every year since the early 1980s. Canadians are so happy, he claims, that they want to keep this level of immigration for an indefinite future, if not increase it — a wish the current liberal government has granted by promising to increase immigration rates to 337,000 a year by 2018. 


Apparently, White Canadians in particular are enthralled by the fact that “more than 20% of Canada’s inhabitants are now foreign-born — almost twice the proportion of residents of Sweden, Germany or the U.S.” They cannot wait till the day when most Canadians will no longer be White, Anglo and Quebecois, but a land occupied mainly by Asians, Muslims, and Africans.


Tepperman happily informs us that idealism has not been the only motivation behind this longing for a harmonious multicoloured future in which the “racist past” of White Canadians will be no more. Canadians have shown themselves to be a most “pragmatic” people in coming to terms with the “necessity” of finding new sources of immigrant labour once sources began to dry up in Europe in the 1950s. Not long ago they were a xenophobic people preferring European migrants but their pragmatic inclinations prevailed under the leadership of liberal politicians who devised a highly impressive system of immigrant selection based on a points system wherein applicants for residency were selected on their educational, linguistic and labour skills and their overall suitability in meeting Canada’s economic needs.


Moreover the multiculturalism Trudeau and subsequent governments devised, with every political party on board, involved a two way street in which immigrants were allowed to retain those elements of their culture that would contribute to Canada’s pluralism while encouraging them to integrate to a common modern liberal society.

Picking most immigrants based on their ability to make material contributions began paying dividends that benefited everyone. Indeed, the system has produced one of the most successful immigrant populations in the world. According to the OECD, Canadian immigrants are better educated than any other country’s foreign-born population (53% of them enter Canada with college degrees, compared with 39% in the U.S.). Their employment rate is among the highest in the developed world, and without them, Canada’s workforce would be shrinking and aging.

Tepperman concludes that Canada’s immigration experience has been “spectacular — a record for politicians everywhere to emulate.”


What the Polls Really Say

But this model is hardly spectacular. Canadians are increasingly showing signs of discontent with the immigration numbers and other related issues. Tepperman is wrong in stating point blank that “polls have shown that two-thirds of them feel that immigration is one of Canada’s key strengths, and the same proportion favors keeping it at its current level — or even increasing it.” 


Even if we were to accept polls as the only measurement of Canadian wishes (which they are not since one of the key aspects of this model is that Canadians are not allowed to question it lest they are willing to live with the label “racist”) there is polling out there showing that Canadians would eagerly welcome significant aspects of Trump’s immigration proposals relevant to the Canadian context:

In this poll, as reported in September 10, 2016, they seem to agree with Trump that we should screen immigrants for anti-Canadian values: “Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for ‘anti-Canadian’.” This preference for immigrants who are more inclined to accept Canadian values holds across the political spectrum: “Conservative supporters with 87 per cent backing the idea and just 8 per cent opposed compared to 57 per cent support among Liberals and 59 per cent for New Democrat voters.”

Canadians also seem to agree with Trump’s concern about opening our borders to Syrian refugees. According to a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute: “More than 70 per cent of Canadians don’t support the federal government taking in more than 25,000 Syrian refugees, according to a new poll…Two in five respondents think Canada should stop taking in Syrian refugees immediately.”

They also seem to agree with Trump that legal immigration should be cut in the future: In a survey conducted in 2013: “When asked whether ‘less immigration’ or ‘more immigration’ would lead ‘to a better future 25 years from now,’ 61.7 per cent of Canadians said less immigration would be preferable, compared to 34.4 per cent who said more immigration would result in a better Canada.”

The Soft Totalitarianism of the Canadian Model of Multiculturalism

A major flaw in discussions about the merits and demerits of Canada’s model of multiculturalism is the naive supposition that this model is all about tolerance and openness. It is not. It cannot be stated any other way: NO DISSENT IS ALLOWED IN CANADA AGAINST THIS MODEL OF IMMIGRANT MULTICULTURALISM. 


The entire society has been structured to make this model work, all the educational and government institutions, media and businesses, are dedicated to making it successful. Therefore, almost all the reports, studies, dissertations, books, and articles produced about this model are biased in their determination to make the system work, show that it is working, and that it can be improved. Whenever problems are identified, they are about the lack of implementation of multiculturalism, obstacles to the integration of immigrants due to “racist attitudes,” “discrimination by White employers” or lack of resources to support newcomers. While some of these difficulties are identified as “problems” in the model, the preferred disposition is to framed them as “challenges” that can be overcome with further advancement of the model.


It is also the case that the method of polling about this model is flawed and does not give a true picture of the actual feelings of many Canadians for the simple reason that Eurocanadians have been brainwashed from the moment they are born to think of multiculturalism as Canada’s identity. They have been compelled to think they must accept immigration, and that if they don’t it is because of “xenophobic fears among Whites.” While positive feelings by immigrants towards multiculti Canada are deemed to be evidence of successful integration, negative feelings by members of the host culture are deemed to be “xenophobic” and thus automatically disqualified as evidence that can be used to show that immigration is not working.


The evidence that counts is of those Canadians who have “progressively” come to accept a multicultural Canada. Citizens with a strong sense of European identity are automatically categorized as “intolerant” and consequently ostracised.


Tepperman notes that a majority of Canadians in the 1960s, 67 percent, opposed any increase in immigration. Yet it does not occur to him to ask why then was mass immigration imposed upon this population? The fact is that even supporters of this policy agree that immigrant multiculturalism has proceeded for the most part by way of non-transparent regulations, executive directives, and administrative discretion rather than by legislative action and popular demand.


The Economic Evidence

Keep in mind that almost 100 percent of the academics in Canada are committed to research intended to the success of this model, “improving” it but never challenging its basic assumptions. Our side has hardly any academics with the means or with the proper political atmosphere to conduct research which focuses on the flaws of the model, and less so on the flaws of the ideology guiding it. 


On the surface, looking at data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, it would seem that, since the mid-90s, that the points system has been a success, in that economic immigrants have constituted around 60 percent of the total, whereas family-class immigrants have constituted around a third of the intake, and refugee inflows about 10-15 percent. It would appear that Canada’s immigration policy has been relatively successful in bringing “quality” immigrants.


But included in the “economic class” are also the spouses and children of the principal economic applicants. For example, it was estimated that in 2005 only 39% of the immigrants classified under the “economic class” were principal applicants selected according to their language skills, level of education, and work experience. As a percentage of all the immigrants granted permanent residency in 2005, only 19.5% were directly selected on the basis of their skills and education.


Moreover, the so-called “highly trained immigrants” have come primarily from countries with educational systems and training standards that are either unfamiliar or lower than Canadian standards. Many have arrived with weak skills in English and/or French, and have not exhibited the credentials, education, and work experience required in high-level Canadian jobs. A survey carried out in 2003 by The International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey on some 18,000 individuals (of whom 3,700 were immigrants) showed that the cognitive skill distribution of immigrants was much lower on average than that of Canadian born individuals. Immigrants from countries in Africa, Asia, Caribbean, and Latin America obtained lower scores on cognitive skills and tests.


Immigrants have not found jobs as quickly as anticipated. Labor market studies in 2006-07, for example, indicate that immigrants who had arrived in the previous five years were less likely to be actively employed, and that higher percentages were unemployed compared to Canadian born workers.


The anticipation that average Canadians would benefit from mass immigration, with a higher proportion being “economic” immigrants, has proven false. It is well-established that Canadian workers’ purchasing power remained flat from 1980 to 2005. According to Statistics, Canada’s analysis of the 2006 census, the median earnings of Canadians (in inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars) have increased by 0.1% since 1980. Not only that, but the earnings of the poorest fifth fell dramatically in that time, by 20.6%, while the top 20% of earners saw their incomes rise by 16.4%.


There is no such thing as a labor shortage in Canada. There is an unwillingness to work for undercut wages due to cheap immigrant labor and imported contract labor. Canadian workers are proud of their political and economic gains against the harsh working conditions of the past, serfdom, peonage, or coolie labor. They do not wish to see an importation of these low-wage, anti-working class values, from the non-Western world just to keep the profits of global corporations high.


One has to consider as well the many elderly relatives of immigrants who use social services without ever having paid for those services during their working lives. Many immigrants hold Canadian citizenship but work abroad, paying no taxes in Canada, and only returning to Canada to use expensive government services. About 11 percent of immigrants have citizenship in Canada and one other country. It has been estimated that 8 percent of Canadian citizens, including those with dual citizenship, or 2.7 million people, live outside Canada.


Economist Herb Grubel of Simon Fraser University, and a Fraser Institute fellow, calculated, among other things, that the costs in services and benefits, in the year 2002 alone, incurred by the 2.5 million immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes they paid by $18.3 billion. He also found out that the average immigrant since 1985 has imposed an annual fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers of $6000, for a total of $25-billion annually for all immigrants. For the fiscal year 2005/06, he calculated that the “fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers was over $6,000 per capita” “because of the low average incomes of recent immigrants, the low taxes they pay and the government services they absorb.” More recently, he calculated that the total fiscal burden “has risen from $16 to $24 billion in 2005, to $20 to $28 billion in 2010, to $27 to $35 billion in 2014.”


I must add I have always been perplexed by the celebration of a model predicated on a system designed to entice the most educated individuals from the poorer nations where they are in higher need. This is known as “braindrain,” which is a form of imperialism, which goes to show how immoral and hypocritical the Canadian “humane” model of mass immigration really is; on the one hand, calling upon Canadians to cherish other cultures, while, on the other, promoting policies that weaken the economic well-being of these cultures.


Integration Versus Ethnic Enclaves

  Sikhs integrated into Canada

On the question of integration: on the surface, it appear that immigrants are integrating into Canada insofar as only a very small number of them have engaged in terrorist activities, or illiberal practices posing an immediate threat to our liberal values. Immigrants are acquiring citizenship, learning one of the official languages, getting involved in Canadian politics, with some intermarrying outside their ethnic group, getting jobs, and participating in Canada’s educational institutions. 


But these facts do not say much; they merely show that the majority of immigrants are integrating into a Canada that is officially defined as a multicultural place committed to mass immigration, and in which the traditional Anglo culture is no longer accepted as the official culture and in which Eurocanadians must accept their reduction to a minority and be forced to compete with skilled workers from the rest of the world as well as with students for university positions.

As it is, the evidence offered by proponents in these matters is flimsy and intrinsically subjective, based solely on the answers immigrants have offered in surveys created by proponents of immigrant multiculturalism. They say there is little evidence of “entrenched racial concentration in poor ghettos,” yet studies do show that Chinese migrants “tend to settle in established Chinese neighbourhoods.” In Richmond, BC, where six out of ten residents are new immigrants, and where half do not speak English in their homes, Chinese-language signs, unaccompanied by English, can be seen everywhere, with multiple incidents of Canadians protesting about the lack of visible English signs. 


A comprehensive study of 17 ethnic groups in 12 Canadian cities by Eric Fong and Rima Wilkes (2003) offers reasons for, but does not deny, residential segregation among different ethnic groups in Canada. In February of 2012, the National Post contained an article, As Immigration Booms, Ethnic Enclaves Swell and Segregate, with the following finding:

In 1981, Canada had only six neighbourhoods with ethnic enclaves…Now, that number has mushroomed to more than 260.

Another study which looks into the future, published by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in July 2012, A New Residential Order? The Social Geography of Visible Minority and Religious Groups in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver in 2031, predicts that 

…in Toronto and Vancouver, the degree of separation between Whites and Visible Minorities is projected to rise considerably, beginning to approach that in the average US city in 2010 between Whites and African Americans.While in Montreal the visible minority population is predicted to be spread out across “neighbourhoods of all types” (including ones mixed with Whites), it is anticipated that in 2031 “about nine out of ten Whites will live in White-dominated areas.”


Destruction of Canada’s Historic Identity

Ultimately the biggest problem with the Canadian model is that that projections are pointing to a future Canada in which “Caucasians” will be increasingly displaced by people who are “non-white in colour” — the terms Statistic Canada uses. This fact is never seen as an issue by the mainstream political parties and the media. Instead, Eurocanadians who lament their dwindling numbers are categorically denounced as “White supremacists,” while “non-Caucasians in race” who call for a majority Asian Canada are celebrated as vibrant and liberal-minded — regardless of their otherwise intolerant customs, hyper-patriarchal dispositions, and unwillingness to marry outside their race. So, even if many are “aware” that they will become a minority, they are prohibited from discussing this issue unless they wish to be labelled “racist.” 


The entire multicultural system in Canada, the policies, hiring practices, grants, media announcements, education, is set up for the advancement of “diversity” and for the benefit of non-European immigrants, which means that many Eurocanadians also stand to benefit as advocates and employees of diversity, since the system offers many economic incentives, jobs within a massive bureaucracy dedicated to the integration of immigrants and the diversification of Canada’s entire society. Diversity ideologues go around parading as upholders of the highest moral principles in human history as they sell-out their heritage, celebrate the culture of foreigners, distort the history of Canada, living easily thanks to the hard labour of past Eurocanadians nation builders. But patriotic Canadians are unsettled by this fake morality, and do wonder whether a model that envisions their reduction to a minority, and that requires them to put down their own heritage, and that even requires them to downplay their foundational role in the creation of Canada, in the name of a fabricated history that would have this nation created by “diverse races,” is as “spectacular” as its supporters claimed it to be.

Advice to McCallum : It’s Time to Go Back To School Posted Aug 28/16



Immigration Minister John McCallum’s has been musing that he will increase Canada’s immigration intake well above 300,000 for 2017. The two reasons he gives are clearly not evidence-based and should be thrown into the nearest recycling bin.


REASON A : He says Canada needs immigrants because it has an aging population. He does not seem to know that the Mulroney government asked Canada’s Department of Health and Welfare to study this issue. It was to determine whether Canada should use immigration to solve problems that might arise because of Canada’s aging population (particularly a drain on Canada’s finances). Health and Welfare Department’s long study around 1990  concluded that Canada would be better off  to use its own population (particularly its females who were not in the workforce and its unemployed older males) to solve such issues. Doing this would stabilize the number of people that each worker supported at 1.9 (Canada’s Dependency Ratio). Increasing immigration to as high as 600,000 per year would have little effect on reducing the percentage of older people in Canada’s population.


McCallum also does not seem to know that a CD Howe Institute study in 2006 on the same issue concluded that “… no conceivable amount of immigration, with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences, can significantly affect the coming shift in the ratio of older to working age Canadians.” It predicted that Canada’s percentage of older Canadians (now around 17%) would rise to 46% of the population by 2050. It looked at three strategies : (1) reducing the percentage of older people through high immigration (2) stabilizing the percentage of older people so that a much smaller percentage of Canada’s population would be 65+ in 2050. One of the very negative results of using high immigration would be that Canada’s population would rise to 169 million by 2050 and its yearly intake would be 7 million !!! Such consequences would clearly negate any benefits.


The third strategy it proposed was to increase Canada’s retirement age to 70. This technique did not use immigration to achieve its end, and would be superior to the other two strategies. By 2050, the maximum percentage of aged Canadians potentially dependent on government programmes would be about 33%, not 50%. Researchers pointed out that simultaneous policies aimed at encouraging work and saving were also important. Saving, in particular, would decrease reliance on public coffers. The Harper government did suggest raising the retirement age. This proposal has to be re-visited


REASON B : McCallum is also saying that Canada has a labour shortage and that Canada needs much higher immigration. He claims to have consulted with about 35 groups across the country. Recently, in Alberta where about 100,000 people have lost their jobs in the past two years because of the downturn in Alberta’s oil industry, he stated that Albertans were telling him that Alberta needed more immigrants. The question that most Albertans are asking is this : Who is McCallum listening to? Other Canadians are asking the same thing.  It seems that the only people he is talking to are members of the immigration lobby (lawyers, consultants, advocates and ethnic groups like the Sikhs, Muslims and Chinese). In fact, he has been proposing that Canada accept many more Chinese students and workers. To accomplish that, he wants to dramatically increase the number of Canada’s visa-granting centres in China. Anyone who has seen what unnecessary immigration has done to Canada in the past 25 years must be cringing or  saying that they would prefer an Ebola epidemic.


And they are not the only ones !!! Two of Canada’s big banks (Toronto Dominion and the Bank of Montreal) did their own studies three years ago on whether Canada had a labour shortage. Both concluded that it did not. The point is that the banks are precisely the ones we would expect to be cheer-leading higher immigration. But the TD Bank stated “With data in hand, we debunk the notion that Canada is facing an imminent skills crisis.”  Overall, both said that whatever skill shortages existed, were isolated and likely no greater than existed a decade ago. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2014 reported that there was little evidence to suggest that a labour shortage exists.


Clearly, Canada’s Immigration Minister John McCallum has not done his homework and he has no evidence to support his proposal to greatly increase Canada’s immigration intake. Our advice : Raising immigration intake to 300,000 for 2016 was already a bad mistake. Don’t make another.