“At least 90% of Syrians pretending to be “refugees” in Canada are on WELFARE, which includes about $600 per month for shelter, an additional $275 per adult, and $133 per child each month, …..” > (Do the math) PLUS Free health care, Free education, E.S.L., Free time, etc. (Just the “bare bones” of FREE stuff for FOREIGNERS!) >more HERE
CANADA’S “REFUGEE” SYSTEM HAS SHOVELLED BILLION$ TO ABUSERS
From “Abusing Canada’s Generosity and Ignoring Genuine Refugees”
Published By Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By James Bissett
It is estimated that roughly 800,000 asylum seekers entered Canada (between 1985 and 2010). [Those numbers of unknown foreigners who were foolishly allowed to enter OUR country without hardly a whimper, actually EXCEED the entire population of Winnipeg, Manitoba >ELN Editor]
In the years 2008 to 2010, over 70,000 claims were registered. This is almost 3,000 per month, and considering there is already a backlog of approximately 60,000 claims before the IRB, it is not alarmist to think that the system is out of control.
(Editor’s Note : IRB (Immigration and Refugee Board), is a group of lay people (not having specialized or professional knowledge of a subject, and even former “refugees” themselves) who determine whether a person is eligible to be given refugee status)
In 2009, Canada became the 3rd largest receiver of asylum seekers (33,000) in the Western world after the United States (49,000) and France (42,000). On a per capita basis, however, we rank number one with one claim for every 1,000 people compared with the United States with one claim per 11,000 people.
In BRITAIN … a bogus “refugee” easily scams his way into the country with unsolicited advice/help by an enabling female border control officer. View this video:
Perhaps the most insidious feature of Canada’s asylum system has been its enormous financial cost and the naïve presumption that the sums involved are justified because we are, in fact, “helping refugees“.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the actual costs because they are spread over three levels of government—federal, provincial and local — and involve a wide variety of activities such as housing, welfare, legal fees, medical care and, of course, the operational cost of the IRB itself, which (amounted to) just over $117-million in 2010).
The chameleon-like character of asylum seekers also makes it difficult to determine costs. These people undergo a transformation of status after arriving in Canada.
If the IRB refuses their claim, they become a “failed asylum seeker” and are subject to removal pending any appeals submitted.
However, if their claim is accepted, they are given refugee status. Then, as a refugee, they are eligible to apply for permanent residence (PR) status, and if accepted, their status changes (again) to that of “immigrant”. Different costs are involved at each stage of the transformation of status.
[ELN Editor’s Note: Thousands of skilled and qualified European peoples — at their own expense — must wait in line for years to have their immigrant documents vetted and approved BEFORE setting foot on Canadian soil to take up residence in our country. Yet, an equal number of un-vetted FOREIGNERS from any 3rd-world hellhole can simply waltz into our country by SELF-PROCLAIMING to be a “refugee”. The government large$$e (read: Canadian Taxpayer) then kicks into immediate action to help feed, clothe and shelter these unknown foreigners on the mere strength of uttering that magic password! How gullible can one be??
To add flavour to this absurd scenario, we’ve adopted another term to describe these liars and cheats who deserve no sympathy from Canadians. We now refer to these bogus “refugees” as Backdoor Uninvited Migrants … or simply B.U.M.(s).
One additional note — from a MSM source — signaling that Canadians are finally waking up to this monumental fraud: Toronto Sun Newspaper]
In 2008, Canada received 37,000 asylum seekers and approximately 60% of these will be refused refugee status by the IRB. Since the government estimates each failed asylum seeker costs $50,000, we can calculate that in 2008 the taxpayers faced a bill of approximately $1.11-billion just to deal with the number of refused cases in the 2008 flow.
Added to the costs are those required to deal with the existing backlog (of 60,000). Even if the costs of the 2008 failed cases are subtracted from the backlog, its numbers have been supplemented by the 33,000 new asylum arrivals in 2009 so the back-log figure of 60,000 would remain at approximately the current level. The costs of dealing with its failure rate of approximately 60 percent would be close to $1.8-billion.
Unfortunately, we are not told if the $50,000 cost figure for (each) failed case is an annual cost, or if it is the total cost involved from refusal of the claimant to eventual removal from Canada. Nor are we informed of the costs of those asylum seekers who are given refugee status by the IRB. The costs do not end when the asylum seeker becomes a “refugee”.
Although it may never be possible to determine the true cost of our asylum system, it is obvious that the current system is terribly expensive and cries out for reform.
(North Korean family try their luck with easy access to our welfare money … read HERE.)
John L. Manion, who was a senior bureaucrat experienced in government financing, a former Deputy Minister of Immigration, Secretary of the Treasury Board, and Associate Clerk of the Privy Council, thought the costs of Canada’s dysfunctional asylum system were in the billions of dollars.
(Editor’s Note: Manion estimated the cost of the refugee system to be a significant part of the total of $4 Billion ($4,000,000,000) spent per year on immigration and refugee programs.)
After his retirement, he wrote letters to two immigration ministers, Sergio Marchi and Elinor Caplan, urging them to initiate reform of the system, even if it meant using the notwithstanding clause of the Charter. He did not even get an acknowledgement to his letters.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has a lavish grants program that gives money to organizations, agencies and community groups that help immigrants and refugees become settled, and that assist them in finding employment, language training and housing. The money is often channelled through agreements with the provinces or given directly to specific agencies. The allocation for 2010-2011 for Alberta was $60,000,000; British Columbia, $114,000,000; Ontario, $408,000,000; and Quebec, $253,700,000. The remaining provinces and territories received $57.7-million, for a total of $893.4-million. Asylum seekers are the beneficiaries of some of this funding.
[Imagine how those Billion$ of OUR tax dollars could benefit Canadian towns and cities by re-surfacing paved roads, repairing bridges and other needed infrastructure requirements, or building new libraries, or sports facilities for our own people!! >ELN Editor]
Asylum seekers also receive services from organizations and groups that are given direct financial grants from Citizenship and Immigration. In the period from October 1 to December 31, 2009, almost 200 agencies across Canada received grants of more than $25,000. Sixty of those agencies were awarded contributions in excess of $1-million. For example, the South Asian Family Support Services of Toronto received $13-million, the Settlement and Integration Services of Hamilton received $9-million, and nine Ottawa-area groups received $9.5-million (Disclosure, 2010).
The total allotted for contributions to the settlement program in the Main Estimates for 2010-2011 was $651,749,278.
Canadians pay a high price for an asylum system that finds 60% of those assisted to be false refugees. (ELN Editor suggests it’s more likely 98% are bogus refugees.)
It becomes even more scandalous when compared with the cost of other organizations or programs. One can only surmise what an injection of $2 Billion to $3 Billion more would do if directed at improving Canada’s [own] health or educational programs, or reducing the deficit. In a time of alleged austerity and government deficits, it would seem there is no shortage of funding for refugees and immigrants.
Prior to the 1990s, it was expected that the immigrants selected to join the labour force would become established within a year and those sponsored by their relatives in Canada would be looked after by the “sponsoring family” and would not be eligible for government assistance. Even refugees selected from camps abroad were expected to be on their own within a year, and they could expect only minimal financial help during their first year in Canada.
Why is it now assumed that immigrants and “refugees” require massive injections of [our] tax dollars to help them become established in their new country? Could it be that government funding to ethnic and other groups dedicated to helping “refugees” and immigrants is designed more to enlist the political support of these groups than it is to provide help to needy newcomers?
These handouts are not widely publicized by government, and few Canadians are aware of the millions (BILLION$ ??) of dollars devoted to these programs. >Source
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.
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
SWEDEN, on Tuesday, became the first European Union country to announce it will give asylum to ALL Syrian “refugees” who apply.
“All Syrian asylum seekers who apply for asylum in Sweden will get it,” Annie Hoernblad, the spokeswoman for Sweden’s migration agency, told AFP.
“The agency made this decision now because it believes the violence in Syria will not end in the near future.”
The decision, which will give refugees permanent resident status, is valid until further notice, added Hoernblad. Until now, Sweden could only house refugees temporarily for three years, after each individual case was evaluated by the state. The agency expects that the “vast majority of Syrian nationals who today have provisional status will apply for permanent status,” said Hoernblad.
Those granted permanent status will also be allowed to bring their families to Sweden.
The extreme, far-left Swedish Socialist regime, took unprecedented action that can only be described as the planned eradication of the Swedish [people] as a unique ethnic phenotype. The Swedish government is offering blanket asylum to any, and all citizens of the nation of Syria.
SWEDEN’s entire population is less than 10 million people and LESSthan 8 million are indigenous Swedes. Now, they have invited a nation of nearly 21 million Arabs to move to their country.
That means Sweden is offering asylum to almost three (3) Arabs for every one (1) of it’s own native Swedes. This action potentially places the Swedish people in a position similar to the American Indians just before waves of Europeans began arriving [in North America].
Recently, Sunni Muslims rioted for a week straight in the Swedish capital [Stockholm] and attacked native Swedes at random. Many Sunni Muslims will go to Sweden and apply for amnesty, specifically, so they can engage in violent jihad in Europe. [For added emphasis, all underlined, bolded words by ELN Editor)
No problem! Because “Europe is for Everybody“> LOL
Most come from Muslim countries or from African hell-holes. All bypassing “safe” Muslim countries, or other safe countries closest to them to make their way to Indonesia – usually by paying for a ticket to fly there – and once there, they pay thousands of $$ for a place on a boat, and then set sail for Australia.
And en route, they toss their passports overboard so that Australia can’t see who they are, where they come from, how old they are, and who is related to who.
Australia – their new country of milk and lots of free honey.
And the Labor Rudd government just waves them in. Over 90% are found to be “genuine” refugees … a joke of massive proportions.
And once they are resettled in Australia, they get free money for life. And this free money comes from the Australian people who work and pay their taxes – the very people who gets hounded by the tax office if they don’t pay their taxes on time, and as owed.
And in return, the Muslims and Africans mostly refuse to assimilate.
No, they head for their nearest Muslim/African stronghold where they are free to live as they did back in their homelands – which they “fled”.
No need to learn English. No need to follow Australian laws. No need to embrace their new country. Nah, nothing’s expected of them – but everything is expected from the Australian people to accommodate their new invaders.
So far, over 45 000 (“refugees”) have come in under Rudd/Gillard since 2008, after previous PM John Howard has all but closed the boat business.
Over 1000 have drowned, but the Left, including the Greens and the lawyers, are only too happy to look the other way just as long as the ‘refugees’ are treated compassionately and continued to be welcomed into Australia. Anyone not following their lead are labelled “racist”, “xenophobic” and “red-necks”. The moral superiority belongs to the Left. Everyone else is wrong.
So, if you are in any doubt as to why these “refugees” choose to travel thousands of miles to come to Australia … then here is the main reason.
Have a look at [this] image […] and notice how much an Australian tax-paying citizen who is a pensioner receives as a government pension, compared to those people who come into our country uninvited, illegally and having paid NOTHING into the tax pot.
One  butchered White British man (25 yr. old Lee Rigby) who was allegedly run down by a car, then HACKED TO DEATH on a London street in full view of onlookers (Unconfirmed reports say he was be-headed).
Two  Black Murderers
One  nonchalant Black pedestrian casually strolling by hacked-to-death and bloodied body of “Lee Rigby” laying on the roadway, then continuing to walk past blood-soaked murderer holding blood-covered murder weapons in his hand … and oddly without any apparent concern. (Perhaps a normal occurrence in 3rd world HAITI and other Black-run countries, but not on a British street.)
One  Black “camerman” safely granted an impromptu interview by one of the Black murderers before armed British police arrive on the gruesome crime scene some 14 minutes later!
Welfare Jihadist Parasite Anjem Choudary Given a BBC Platform
The MSM (mainstream media) is making an all-out effort to describe this gruesome MURDER as a “terrorist attack” for the purpose of minimizing the horrendous impact this story will have on ordinary British citizens.
The Metropolitan Police, the MSM, and their handlers are using this opportunity to raise unnecessary alarm over “terrorists“, while deflecting attention away from the fact, that these two incongruent BLACK AFRICAN MURDERERS (and their kinsmen) should not have been allowed to enter England in the first place. So, be assured the all-encompassing generic term of “terrorist“, aligned with “Ismalic“, will be vigorously promoted by the controlled press to help mitigate the real colour of crime in London. The sheeple must be indoctrinated to believe in the “joys of diversity“, otherwise enforced “multiculturalism” would be revealed for what it is … the greatest FRAUD ever perpetuated against White nations, and onlyWhite nations.
(Readers: Some claim this event to be a psy-op HOAX … here, here and here, and with plausible explanations … so use your own discretion.)
… from NineNews, Justice Betty King says there have been numerous examples of African refugees coming before the (Australian) courts for offences linked to excessive consumption of alcohol.
She says many young Africans appear to be spending their days drinking (alcohol) because they have nothing to do, and are seemingly dispossessed.
[ELN Editor’s Note:Of course, Black Africans are “seemingly dispossessed” because these 3rd-world illiterates are wholly incompatible to living with White Europeans. They inevitably suffer from the “envy complex” which they can never achieve, so they begin stewing in a cauldron of hatred which eventually boils over and unleashed against their gullible White benefactors.
For example, the violent behaviour patterns seen in this video and perpetrated against ordinary Australians gathered together for a festive occasion, would never have occurred had they been WHITE South African refugees. Instead, we have the usual incompatible foreign Black thugs who wreaked uncontrolled havoc on taxpaying Australians who help feed and clothe these incongruent invaders.
The TV series “Star Trek” is noted for having a very wise and sensible “Prime Directive” inserted in their script that simply states:
“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely.
Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”
Justice King said Boronika Gam Hothnyang, 25, not only wasted the life of William Awu when she stabbed him to death, but also wasted her own life.
[Take note, Justice King, of the above-mentioned “prime directive”.]
Both Hothnyang and Mr Awu, 26, had fled war-torn Sudan hoping for a better life in Australia.
[Are you fed-up of having to read — ad nauseam — this journalistic drivel of “hoping for a better life” nonsense? Sure, it’s a “better life” for them, but certainly not for their benefactors who must pay for it! There are over 7,000,000,000 (billion) people who occupy this planet today, yet it seems the 8% White proportion are always obligated to taking care of the ungrateful “others” whose ratio exceeds our own by 12 to 1 . … ELN Editor]
Hothnyang stabbed Mr Awu, who was her friend, once in the chest as he sat passed out in a chair at her Dandenong home. [LOL! Australia has very strict gun laws, but knives are readily available—ed]
Justice King described the crime as inexplicable, but noted Mr Awu, a talented drawer, had earlier sketched Hothnyang in a caricature in which she was overweight.
The judge said the murder was a tragic waste of life that was all too common.
[This Australian judge needs to brush-up on her African history lessons to learn of African murder rates (or Haiti) that far exceed anything that Australia has to offer.]
“It is a disturbing matter to note that you and the persons with whom you were gathered, including the deceased, are not the first, second, third or even fourth of similar groups of Sudanese or other African refugees that have come before the courts on serious charges which can be directly linked to the consumption of large quantities of alcohol,” Justice King said.
“All of this is such a sad reflection on our society that we have groups of seemingly dispossessed men and women who have been brought here as refugees with little or nothing to do except drink their days away.”
As is to be expected … NO mention of where they get the money to get drunk while they are doing nothing — the Australian taxpayer.
And, for their welcoming deed in this woman’s case, the murderer has 3 kids that will surely now be taken care of by—you guessed it!—the Australian taxpayer, as she (the murderer) does time in the slammer.
[And, still more “refugees“, and more
of their imported VIOLENT crimes. Here’s the latest , plus more Black attacks coming your way, Australia. This imported African violence is NOT going to stop, until you take a stand against importing the problem in the first place, Australia.]
By definition, refugees are people who claim persecution, leave their home country (where the “persecution” occurred) and seek asylum in a safe country. They are not supposed to use “safe countries” as hopping off places for a better deal somewhere else, and that is what is happening with increased frequency worldwide. (Search ‘Malta’ here at RRW to learn more about how that came to be.)
Nothing steams me more than the fact that, we, and other western countries are now taking Black AFRICAN “refugees” from South Africa who claim that the Rainbow Nationis “not safe” for them. Yet, heaven help the truly persecuted Whites in South Africa.
I’ve written many posts over the years trying to expose the Rainbow Nation multicultural nirvana myth, but it seems that no one in the media is willing to face the reality of what the “Rainbow Nation” is! Here is how wikipediadescribes the term “Rainbow Nation“. What a joke!
Rainbow Nation is a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to describe post-apartheid South Africa, after South Africa’s first fully democratic election in 1994.
The phrase was elaborated upon by President Nelson Mandela in his first month of office, when he proclaimed: “Each of us is as intimately attached to the soil of this beautiful country as are the famous jacaranda trees of Pretoria and the mimosa trees of the bushveld – a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.”
The term was intended to encapsulate the unity of multi-culturalism and the coming-together of people of many different nations, in a country once identified with the strict division of white and black.
Surprise! Tribalism is alive and well in South Africa, and diversity does not bring strength!
Here is the story that caught my attention about Australia (and other western countries) taking “refugees” from South Africa. It begins and ends with the story of Congolese “asylum seekers” who have lived in South Africafor a decade (5 of those years have been spent trying to get out).
After five years of hoping and waiting, Marie*, her husband Simeon* and their three children, refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, finally received a phone call telling them to pack their bags as they would be leaving South Africa for Australia at the end of the month.
Simeon was unconcerned by the short notice. “We’ve been ready for so long,” he told IRIN from the UN Refugee Agency’s (UNHCR) offices in Pretoria, where the family had just found out the name of the (Australian) city they would be restarting their lives in.
“Brisbane,” said Marie, testing the word on her lips for the first time. “Do you know where that is?”
The xenophobic violence that South Africa is experiencing is not coming from the White population, but in many cases, is leveled at White (citizens) as well as black African “foreigners.” Of course, news reports never make that clear. They can’t bring themselves to say that the Blacks of Nelson Mandela’s supposedly “victimized” South Africa … are now persecuting other (Blacks)!
Until a wave of xenophobic violence against foreigners erupted in South Africa in 2008, the country was considered fairly progressive in its treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, and as having little need for resettlement. Since that time, most of the cases that UNHCR refers for resettlement are victims of continued xenophobic attacks, many of them Somalis attempting to run businesses in low-income (South African) areas where their presence is viewed as a threat by local traders.
The Congolese family was rejected by the US and Canada before being “welcomed” by Australia (see previous postabout Australia increasing its refugee numbers). The UN went shopping for a country which would take them.
For a refugee desperate to escape an intolerable situation and make a fresh start, the process can feel endless, particularly if it concludes with a rejection. Dermegerditchian said more than 90% of the cases that UNHCR submits for resettlement in the southern Africa region are accepted, but Marie and her family were rejected by both the US and Canada before Australia agreed to take them.
Marie is convinced that they were rejected because two of their children suffer from haemophilia, a genetic disorder that impairs the body’s ability to control bleeding, but Dermegerditchian was reluctant to speculate. “Resettlement countries have their own criteria; they only inform us of the reasons for denial in general terms,” he said. “In some cases UNHCR needs to reinterview the refugee to make sure their stories are consistent. If we can’t find a problem, we resubmit their case to another country.”
After years of joblessness, denial of medical treatment for their children, and what they describe as “constant xenophobia” from their neighbours, Marie and Simeon’s relief to be leaving their home of the past decade is palpable. “The fact that they’re welcoming us [in Australia] – it frees you psychologically,” said Simeon. >Source