The Japanese have a proper policy towards these so-called “refugees.” Of course, most of these individuals aren’t even real “refugees.” They are parasitesinvading nations to get free stuff from the host population.
Japanrejected 99% of these “refugee” claims last year. This has prompted Jewish tears etc.. but so what? The Japanese don’t want any foreigners coming in and changing their culture.
Asian people aren’t stupid.The They see what’s happening in Europe, and multiculturalism has been nothing short of a disaster.
Why do the same thing in the name of abstract Jewish-promoted concepts like multiculturalism and diversity? It makes no sense to do so. >Source
No one in Syria had to flee the war, and they all have come to Europe just to seek money and take up jobs supposedly offered to them by Angela Merkel, an “asylum seeker”Syrian in Germany has admitted to the Huffington Post.
The confession is contained in an article prepared by a well-known Iranian-born writer living in Germany, Ramin Peymani, and published in that newspaper’s German edition.
The article, titled Der Syrer—eine Flüchtlingsgeschichte (“The Syrians—a Refugee Story,” Dec. 2, 2015), starts off by Peymani explaining that he met up with the Syrian “refugee” by chance in the checkout line at a local grocery store in Germany.
Being an Iranian, Peymani could speak fluently with the “refugee,” who freely admitted that he, and all the others claiming to be refugees, were not fleeing war … but had merely come in search of jobs and money.
The Syrian told Peymani that his mother lived in America, that that his sister was still in Syria.
“Did you escape with your mother? Why your sister has not come?” Peymani asked.
“No, I did not flee. None of us had to flee,” the Syrian freely admitted.
“The Assad regime is cruel and unjust, but you can live in Syria, if you just don’t mess with it.”
Peymani then asked, if the Syrian had then fled from the Islamic State terrorists. The Syrian’s answer in this regard was revealing as well:
“I come from Damascus, like most of us [“refugees”] do that I’ve met in the camp. There is no IS [in Damascus]; it is in other regions, for example, towardsIraq.”
Peymani then asked him the logical next question: “Are you saying that most Syrians do not fleefrom war and persecution?”
The Syrian answered: “Yes. My friends and I went because we didn’t want to go to the army. And because it is easier to get a good job and earn moneyinEurope.”
Peymani then wanted to know why so many Syrians had come so suddenly. “Why now are so many coming? Is it because the Assad regime has become worse?”
The Syrian replied: “No. He (Assad) has been in power many years already. The regime is cruel and can kill opponents, but my family and I have not been touched … and none of my friends either.”
So why had they all now come to Europe, Peymani asked … to which the Syrian replied:
“In the summer we saw on the Internet that Germany wanted people to live there. We were invited to come here. And it was said that the state would take care of us and we would be given jobs. But I cannot find one…”
Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel (Selling out her nation)
Peymani also asked him what route he had followed to Germany.
“I lived in Turkey for some time after my mother had emigrated to the United States to be with relatives. But I could not get a visa for the USA, even though my mother has a green card.”
Peymani asked him if he had “fled” to Turkey “because of the war in Syria?”
Laughing, the Syrian replied: “No. My friends and I are here because we thought we’d find work. We did not like Turkey.”
He was then asked if his “story is typical of the people who leave Syria?”
The Syrian replied: “I think most go for the same reason as I did. All men of my age, who want to just live better elsewhere.” >Source
…and here they come!
Meanwhile in Canada, a dangerous mixture of pathological altruism combined with a dose of gullibility and naïveté are impelling ordinary Canadians to foolishly welcome 50,000 Syrian “refugees” into our communities that will cost BILLION$ of tax dollars we can’t afford!
“Kristiina Ojuland studied law and politology at University of Tartu. She is the founder and leader of the People’s Unity Party 2014. Ms. Ojuland was once the Foreign Minister of Estonia, a member of Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament), and served on the European Parliament in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group.
Kristiina is with us to talk about the increasingly troublesome issue of mass immigration in Estonia, and Europe in general. She sums up the demographic, economic and social climates of the small, relatively poor country of Estonia, where native populations are quickly being transformed by “refugee” transplants flooding in from North Africa and other Mediterranean countries.
We discuss the special privileges and benefits that are granted to non-European immigrants, and the major burdens the social system is experiencing through receiving foreigners who resist true integration and exploit the social order.
Kristiina touches on the important point of security threats that are presented with mass quantities of Muslims entering Europe, many of whom are lacking passports, have questionable backgrounds, and are seeking new identities as ISIS fighters and Jihadist radicals.
We expand on the crippling effects of political-correctness in government, and where this absurdity needs to be eliminated in order to speak frankly and honestly about immigration issues, namely the European Commission’s response to the recent boat crisis in the Mediterranean and their plan to impose non-voluntary immigration quotas across all EU countries. In conclusion, Kristiina talks about what she is doing to raise awareness about these extreme proposals and highlights steps that must be taken in order to preserve the continued existence of the unique cultures and peoples of Europe.
“We won’t save ‘refugees’ by destroying our own country.”
By Peter Hitchens
Actually, we can’t do what we like with (Britain). We inherited it from our parents and grandparents, and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.
Britain – 1967
London in 2015 is now less than 45% White
It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give [our country] away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us “feel good” about ourselves.
Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into hisor her home for an indefinite period … and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.
If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact, open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.
As William Blake rightly said: ‘He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.’
Britain is a desirable place to live mainly because it is an island, which most people can’t get to. Most of the really successful civilisations survived because they were protected from invasion by mountains, sea, deserts or a combination of these things. Ask the Russians or the Poles what it’s like to live without the shield of the sea. There is no positive word for ‘safety’ in Russian. Their word for security is ‘bezopasnost’ – ‘without danger’.
Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom. I have visited nearly 60 countries and lived in the USSR, Russia and the USA, and I have never experienced anything as good as what we have. Only in the Anglosphere countries – the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – is there anything comparable. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.
Our advantages depend very much on our shared past, our inherited traditions, habits and memories. Newcomers can learn them, but only if they come in small enough numbers. Mass immigration means we adapt to them — when they should be adapting to us.
So now — on the basis of an emotional spasm — dressed up as civilisation and “generosity”, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?
But I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.
You really think these crowds of tough young men chanting ‘Germany!’ in the heart of Budapest are ‘asylum-seekers’ or ‘refugees’?
Refugees don’t confront the police of the countries in which they seek sanctuary. They don’t chant orchestrated slogans or lie across the train tracks.
And why, by the way, do they use the English name for Germany when they chant? In Arabic and Turkish, that country is called ‘Almanya’, in Kurdish, something similar. The Germans themselves call it ‘Deutschland’. In Hungarian, it’s ‘Nemetorszag’.
Did someone hope that British and American TV would be there? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: spontaneous demonstrations take a lot of organising.
Refugees don’t demand … or choose their refuge. They ask and they hope. When we become refugees one day (as we may well do), we will discover this.
Ontario Government Wants to Help “Refugees” — But Not Young (Canadian-born) Girl
TORONTO – Little Madi Vanstone is one beautiful child — with a major health problem.
The 12-year-old has a rare form of Cystic Fibrosis (CF) and requires a life-saving drug, Kalydeco, to keep her breathing. The big problem is the drug costs $348,000 a year — and it’s not covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan).
Madi’s mom, Beth, gave up work when her daughter was diagnosed with CF at eight months of age. “You can’t hold down a job and have a baby in Sick Kids,” Beth told me recently. “We made some lifestyle changes.”
Madi’s dad, Glen, a pipefitter, has insurance benefits that pay for 50% of her drug bill. The drug manufacturer picks up 30% — but that leaves the family paying $5,770 a month to keep their daughter alive. Folks in their small community near Bradford have rallied around Madi.
Local kids walked dogs all summer to raise money. A fund raising gala made $21,000. Celtic tenor John McDermottput on a concert. The local church held a soup kitchen. They did what Canadians have done for generations — pulled together to help a child in need.
That’s what makes Monday’s announcement by the provincial health ministry so galling. This province (Ontario) is trying to shame the feds (Federal Government) into reinstating care for refugee claimants.
We can’t even afford life-saving drugs for a child who has lived in this province all her life. Whose family has paid taxes for generations. But in a foot-stamping, blame-the-feds act of cynicism, apparently we have enough money to pay for health care for refugee claimants.
When I came here (from England), I was just glad to be accepted into a country that is full of so much hope and promise. This is the land that was built on the sweat of can-do people who came looking for work — not handouts.
At a time when our health-care system is failing children like Madi … there’s no way we should be expanding coverage for refugee claimants.
Madi is battling a deadly disease. Within 30 days of going on the drug, she was negative for symptoms and her lung capacity had improved 100%. Without the drug, Madi’s lung function was declining. She’d probably need a lung transplant by her mid-teens — and that would only give her another five years. “The thought of having to take her off it … you don’t know how terrifying that is,” Beth said, her voice trailing off. “It’s saving her life — saving her lungs.”
Madi made remarkable progress with the drug. Within 30 days, diagnostic tests for CF were negative as the drug corrects the defect in her body. Her lung function increased from 78% of expected value to 111% of expected value. But the province adamantly won’t pay.
But we do have enough money to pay the very generous Ontario Drug Benefit Plan (O.D.B.P.) for people here as refugee claimants, and those awaiting deportation.
Are we nuts?
In her news release, Health Minister Deb Matthews said she will send the bill to the feds (Canada’s Federal Government in Ottawa). That’s nervy, but out of line. If the feds decide to cut spending, then the province shouldn’t shame them into changing their mind.
Let refugee claimants hold bake sales for their (own) health care… as Madi’s family has done.
In that release, Dr. Phillip Berger, of St. Michael’s Hospital and a member of Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, said sick children and pregnant women can’t get care, and cancer patients are denied chemotherapy.
If doctors care that much, they can treat refugees for free.
Madi and other patients needing coverage for their care will be at Queen’s Park (in Ontario’s capital city of Toronto) (on) Tuesday making their case.
The argument that “we can’t afford it” no longer holds water — not as long as our government is throwing money at refugee claimants. We can pay for refugee health care when our $13-Billion deficit is erased — and when our $250-Billion accumulated debt has disappeared.
(For added emphasis, links and all bolded, underlined, and italicized words by ELN Editor)
[ELN Editor’s Note: As reported in the above story, apparently no money is available to help save a young Canadian-born girl in her “hour of need”. However, a Canadian-funded organization is able to come to the immediate rescue of a Toronto-born Somalian “anchor baby” wounded in Africa at a Kenyan shopping mall, and have her transported several thousands of miles to a bed in a Toronto hospital … AFTER being absent from Canada for 4 years! Try calculating the enormous cost of air-lifting an injured patient out of the dark continent and flying her to Canada for hospital treatment at our expense!
Furthermore, racially-reverse the roles of these two young girls, and be assured the outcome in our new “politically-correct” nation would be entirely different.
In yet another scenario from a few years ago, Canadian taxpayers came to the rescue of some 15,000 “passport Canadians” trapped in war-torn Lebanon — that cost Canadians almost $100,000,000 — (that’s $100 MILLION) yet the authorities balk at paying a tiny fraction of that amount to save a real Canadian girl … by the name of Madi Vanstone.]
P.S. The once proud, United States of America, seem to have their own brewing problems.
By James Bissett
From “Abusing Canada’s Generosity and Ignoring Genuine Refugees”
Published by Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Unlike other countries, Canada allows almost unlimited access (to its refugee system).
Canada is one of the few countries that permits anyone from any country to claim asylum, and apply for “refugee” status.
(Editor’s Note 1 : Between 1985 and 2010, over 800,000 people made claims to obtain refugee status in Canada. Around 60% of the 800,000 have proved to be fraudulent. The objective of most of the 800,000 people has been to:
(1) gain refugee status, (2) get immigrant status and (3) bring others here. This is why, for many years, critics have stated that Canada’s refugee system has become an alternate immigration system.)
(Editor’s Note 2 : In addition, every year, Canada’s Immigration Department and private organizations such as churches go to refugee camps abroad, and re-settle about 10,000 people in Canada.)
European Union countries, long ago, introduced pre-screening processes to sort out frivolous and clearly false claims from genuine ones, and they have accelerated procedures for dealing with claimants originating from countries considered safe for refugees. Many countries have reduced welfare benefits and other services to asylum seekers ; others do not permit asylum seekers to work. These methods have been implemented so that fraudulent claimants who are illegal immigrants do not overwhelm their asylum systems.
(Editor’s Note 3 : Recently, former Immigration Minister Jason Kenney helped to correct the problem of people coming from Safe countries and abusing our system. He established a list of Safe countries from which claims will not be accepted.)
Under Canada’s system, there is no effective pre-screening procedure to separate the obviously unfounded claims from those that are genuine. As a result, all who submit a claim receive a quasi-judicial hearing before the IRB to determine if they are to receive refugee status. In most cases, the claimant also receives free legal assistance when appearing before the IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board).
The problem is that although the IRB finds that almost 60 per cent of the claims are false, there are so many claimants, (that) it can take two years or more for a claim to be heard. In the meantime, the claimant is entitled to (free) welfare, free medical care and other services, as well as having permission to work in Canada.
Moreover, if the IRB decides the claimant is not a genuine refugee, there is a series of appeals and reviews available to determine if there are humanitarian or compassionate reasons why the person should be allowed to remain. In addition, no one can be removed if there is an indication that if the person is sent home, he or she might face torture or death. The longer the claimant remains in the country, the better the chances are that there will be no removal. Time is on the side of the claimant. Prolongation of the time in Canada means that the authorities are either unable or unwilling to follow through with the unpleasant, expensive and time-consuming deportation process.
As a result, thousands of failed claimants are able to stay, and this adds to the attractiveness that Canada has for others (bogus refugees) who wish to use the asylum route to gain entry. The name of the game is to gain entry to the country; for the vast majority of claimants, whether their refugee claim is eventually successful or not is irrelevant. They will get to stay.
On average, it takes 4.5 years from the submission of a claim until a person who is found not to be a refugee is removed; in some cases, it takes 10 years or more. More often than not, the individual either disappears, or is eventually allowed to remain in Canada. The Auditor-General’s report of 2007 pointed out that there were 42,000 warrants for the arrests of failed asylum seekers whose whereabouts were unknown and another 15,000 with addresses presumably listed with the authorities (Auditor-General, 2008).
The forced removal of failed asylum seekers is a difficult and expensive exercise, frequently fraught with emotional distress and bad publicity when the media or church groups that offer sanctuary champion individual cases. Large numbers of asylum seekers arrive with false documents or without any, so it is difficult to know where to send them when the time comes for their removal. Often it is impossible to obtain travel documents from the individual’s own country.
Removal costs range between $1,500 and $15,000 per removal, but some cases can cost up to $300,000. The new Bill introduced by the Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, estimates a cost of $540.7-million over five years for the removal of failed asylum seekers. This could be reduced considerably if — upon arrival, –there were a fast-screening system that would prevent obviously false claims from proceeding. Unless removal can be carried out within 48 hours, the chances of successful removal become problematic (Citizenship and Immigration, 2010).
James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador with 36 years of service in the government of Canada. He was the Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania, and the High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago. From 1985 to 1990, he was the executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service. >SOURCE
Self-proclaimed “refugees” usually arrive with NO identification (or bogus I.D.), NO passport, NO money (they ‘say’), have little education and/or few, if any skills. We KNOW NOTHING of their personal background, nor do we know if they are criminal fugitives, terrorists, scammers, child molesters, diseased TB or HIV carriers … absolutely NOTHING! Yet these foreign liars and scammers are ushered into our country as if they were well-known honoured guests. Amazingly stupid, eh?
(Some Canadian-born residents undergo a more stringent examination when rightfully re-entering their very own nation.)
Pouring out their well-rehearsed sob stories to immigration officers will most assuredly gain them sanctuary which includes a generous “vacation package” for five years, or until we can sort out their fictional stories. That long wait-time is the result of a huge back-log of earlier phony claimants who’ve gotten “the message” which only expands their numbers with each passing year.
With today’s communication technology, “themessage” instantly gathers speed around the globe in many foreign languages.
What is the worded message sent on their Blackberry smart phone devices … you ask? The message is something like this: “These stupid Canadians are a soft touch, free money and good times — come quickly!”
Thus, a never-ending CHAIN MIGRATION of even more foreign free-loaders who willingly take full advantage of our foolish generosity. The cycle repeats itself again and again until ‘compassion fatigue’ begins to set in, or until the “frog in the slow boiling water” begins to wake up to reality.
With such an easy access route provided to them, why should “refugees” trouble themselves with the normal channels of immigration when they have no chance of success? With better odds, nearing an 80% acceptance rate, it’s easier to lie and cheat their way into our country.
Of course, our welfare system is the big “pull”, so why not deny “refugees” from accessing our welfare benefits? Who said we owe these self-inviting interlopers any support funds when they could be made to work at low-paying jobs until we can confirm their lies? That would surely discourage over 95% of them from ever seeking asylum in Canada.
Our OWN destitute people living on the streets or under bridges could use that extra help from gullible do-gooders who eagerly rush around helping conniving foreigners who prey on our misplaced sympathies!
During the 3 to 5 year waiting time, these uninvited strangers from mostly poor 3rd world countries where their living costs amounted to $2 per day back home, are suddenly “blessed with manna from the Canadian heaven” inthe form offree benefits beyond their wildest dreams….. free welfare money, free lodgings, free food, freeclothing, free medical/dental care, free legal care, free taxi chits, etc. etc. — all provided byYOU….. the stressed-out, working taxpayer. Even Canadian-born pensioners who actually worked for 30-40 years are not treated this well.
Our intention is to alert Canadians of the amount and type of fraud perpetuated by many asylum-seekers in Canada. This particular family did succeed in defrauding our country, but the head of the household felt ashamed for taking benefits intended for genuine refugees and eventually left Canada.
The word “refugee” is often used to elicit waves of sympathy. Most Canadians do not object to giving refugee status to genuine applicants, but those numbers cannot be limitless.
Over 800,000 “refugees” have been processed here since 1989, and a significant number these claimants are fraudulent in nature. These occurrences should have alerted Ottawa to implement regulations which reflected a national wariness of self-proclaimed asylum applicants.
Instead, Ottawa (Capital City) has bowed to the pressure of Canada’s immigration lobby. This has caused costs and the length of processing time to increase substantially. Most Canadians do not want their generosity abused. They also want to limit the cost of caring for fake applicants while due process of their claims occurs. >continue reading
OTTAWA – Immigration Minister Jason Kenney defended the refugee health care reform on Friday following a chorus of criticism from provincial counterparts and doctors.
Ontario Health MinisterDeb Matthews wrote a letter to the Feds on Thursday urging the government to reconsider changes, fearing downloaded costs and a “class system” for health care, but Kenney sent a sharp message back at an Ottawa press conference.
“I don’t understand why they (provincial governments) seem to be more concerned about providing supplementary health benefits, like dental care and eye care, to, for example, rejected asylum claimants, than to their OWN citizens,” Kenney told reporters.
The Tories have recently come under fire for changes to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which has provided services to roughly 130,000 refugees. This policy change is contained within Bill C-31 – Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act – which just received royal assent.
Starting (July 1, 2012), non-government sponsored refugees will lose access to temporary enhanced benefits coverage of vision and dental care, and discretionary medication, while government sponsored refugees who come from camps overseas will see no change to their access.
The feds expect refugee health changes to save taxpayers an estimated $100,000,000 over 5 years and they suggest provincial governments will benefit from other reforms.
“We estimate it will save provincial governments around $1.6 billion over five years by accelerating the removal of false asylum claimants … right now, those claimants typically spend several years in Canada,” Kenney said.
But some doctors — along with opposition parties — have sounded the alarm about the potential impacts of changes to IFHP, and suggest lives could be at risk.
“They try to say refugees were getting better health care than Canadians. We know that is not true. Refugees are some of the most vulnerable when we bring them into our country,” said the NDP’s immigration critic Jinny Sims. “They were getting very basic care. But under the new changes … a diabetic is not even going to be able to get that insulin shot. What that could lead to is further complications. In many ways the government’s policy is a penny wise and a pound foolish.”
Medical professionals have recently crashed various government announcements to protest the changes but the (Federal) government says it will not reconsider its decision. >Source