Our Tragic Immigration System
By Immigration Watch Canada
Canada currently accepts close to 250,000 immigrants per year (or almost 5000 new immigrants every week! – Editor). But it has made clear its intentions to raise those levels to 1% of Canada’s population. This would amount to an annual immigration level of 320,000+ which would increase in perpetuity. We believe that number will cause economic, environmental and cultural mayhem and that immigration levels have to return to Canada’s traditional policy of adhering to absorptive capacity.
To compensate for the excessive and unjustified immigration levels of the past (17) years, we believe that immigration should be reduced to an intake in the range of 50,000 per year. We believe this reduction should continue until there is a clear and well-documented case for either increasing it or decreasing it further. In other words, Immigration Watch Canada believes in dramatic reduction of immigration levels, but we do not advocate abolition of immigration.
- FIRST, let’s provide for our fellow CANADIANS!
We disagree with most of Canada’s current asylum-seeker policies. We believe that they have been grossly abused by people who are, in fact, economic immigrants and that Citizenship and Immigration has done little to correct the abuse of the system. In effect, Citizenship and Immigration, and the federal government in general, have allowed the asylum-seeker policy to become a second immigration door into Canada.
Since 1989, around 500,000 asylum-seekers have used this door. According to James Bissett, a former Executive-Director of Canada’s Immigration Service for 5 years, the vast majority of people who have claimed asylum are not genuine refugees fleeing persecution. These fraudulent refugee claimants have virtually paralyzed the quasi-legal and legal systems made available to them. These people have so overloaded the system that the federal government has been forced to grant them amnesties from time to time.
We believe (based on the federal government’s own economic research and its own previous tradition of adhering to labour absorptive capacity) that there are limits to the number of workers of any type that a country needs or can absorb. Present immigration levels in Canada pay no attention to the principle of economic absorptive capacity, ignore a real unemployment level of over 2 million and seem to assume that Canada can admit a virtually limitless number of new workers.
As a result, immigration levels have far exceeded Canada’s economic absorptive capacity. In effect, they are an historical anomaly. Adhering to labour absorptive capacity in the past has meant that when Canada needed workers from outside its borders, it looked for those workers. When it did not need them, it did not look for them.
Immigrants have found that, contrary to what they have been told by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, they cannot find work in the areas for which they have been trained. Consequently, many immigrants are unemployed and relying on social assistance or they are under-employed.
More significantly, Canadian-born have found that they are competing for employment with recently-arrived immigrants. In addition, they are the victims of their own government’s equity employment programmes (known in the United States as affirmative action programmes). Equity employment measures (really “inequity” employment measures) deny them [White Canadians] equality in job applications, and favour immigrants whose job skills, in most cases, were and are surplus to the labour absorptive capacity of Canada’s economy.
In effect, equity employment measures amount to institutionalized discrimination by Canadian employers (both public and private) against Canadian-born. As Dr. Martin Loney has pointed out in his comprehensive study of this issue, equity employment measures are not based on evidence, but on ideology. We believe this entire very expensive and unjust programme has to be abolished.
The flow of immigrants into Canada’s three major urban areas has resulted in dramatic population increases there. For example, in the Greater Vancouver area, it took about 130 years (roughly 1856 to 1988) to reach a population level of 1.4 million. It took [only] another 12 years (!) to reach 2.1 million
Toronto (even more so than Vancouver) and Montreal have had similar experiences. (Even if Canada’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration insisted that new immigrants go to smaller population centres, (but) what smaller population centres really need more people?
As for the vast open and empty spaces of Canada, it is a fact (as noted in “Who We Are”) that about 40% of Canada’s area is Arctic and even more is sub-Arctic. Would the “vast, empty spaces” lobby agree that these new people should go to Baffin Island and other parts of Canada’s Arctic (North of 60)? Would small-town Canada south of 60 want to be flooded by immigrants?
Canada now accepts more immigrants per capita than any other developed country.
Canada’s multiculturalists have welcomed the unprecedented rise in immigration levels and simultaneously implied that Canada was a cultural wasteland before “The Flood” began around 1989. Most Canadians, particularly those in Canada’s major urban areas, feel that they are being overwhelmed by the high numbers of recent immigrants.
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
[ Also, see this short video on the impact of U.S. immigration policies by clicking here. ]