Foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to the Committee for being open to hearing the thoughts of private citizens in regards to immigration and refugee matters. Without wishing to minimize the important work of Government and civil servants, it is ordinary people who, like ourselves, work in the private sector and use public transportation on a daily basis that experience the brunt of Canada’s immigration policies. We must note how frustrating it is for many Canadians to be tremendously impacted by these issues, but far too seldom consulted.
We have been running a website called Canadian Immigration Report for the past three years and have followed and posted over 4,000 immigration-related news items.
We are extremely aware of the problems related to Canada’s immigration and refugee policy and appear today to present the unspoken thoughts of many Canadians, whom are generally too timid and fearful to voice their criticism of immigration matters.
A growing number of people in this country are extremely frustrated about the risks of commenting on Canada’s immigration policy for fear of prompting a string of overused epithets.
Immigration is simply the act of processing applications. It is essentially a matter of who gets a rubber stamp on their passport. Nothing more. Immigration is not an immutable chimera that cannot be discussed or debated. It is not beyond questioning and demands the same scrutiny as any other public policy.
Immigration is indeed our most important public policy because we are, in effect, choosing our public. These rubber stamps are deciding what our population will look like and how its future will be shaped. Is Canada to continue the legacy of our European settlers, or are we to disintegrate into linguistic, religious and ethnic micro-societies? Will the same European values we have today still exist in a hundred years?
Immigration is the most powerful and the most permanent public policy and it deserves to be open to criticism and debate just the same as any other policy.
Today, we were invited here to present our concerns regarding Canada’s immigration and refugee policy which we will surmise in the following six points:
1. The loss of social cohesion resulting from an aggressive and artificial increase in ethnic and racial diversity. Additionally, the inevitable ethos shift from a European-based society to a non-European, nondescript, global-based amalgamation of peoples, each with their own specific cultural and group interests.
We must consider how dearly we are dedicated to maintaining Canada’s distinctly European set of values. The very essence of this nation is imperiled by today’s immigration policy. It is difficult to foresee the perpetuation of European principles of gender equality, environmentalism, democracy, respect of gay rights and compassion if this country is to be replaced and governed by a coalition of non-European ethnic groups, each with their own non-European cultural background and strong sense of ethnic solidarity.
Our immigration policy decides whether or not we wish for our descendants to live in a society that resembles ourselves or in a nation burdened by constant squabbling between rival ethnic and racial groups.
2. Our population increase by means of importing people has a tremendous negative environmental impact.
We are importing over a quarter million more people every year1 and these individuals are frequently leaving a country with a very low rate of per-capita carbon dioxide emission.
For instance, in 2010 Canada acquired 36,000 permanent residents from the Philippines2, and each of these immigrants multiplied their carbon footprint by a factor of twenty3.
It must be considered, also, that immigrants come to Canada and expect a first-world lifestyle. Very few arrive from China or Africa and enjoy being told that they should ride a bus or bicycle around town for “green” reasons. These individuals left that sort of lifestyle back home and are all too keen to embrace the heavily consumerist, car-driving habits of every other Canadian.
We are increasing Canada’s carbon footprint exponentially.
3. A low birthrate will not be solved by importing child-breeders. We need a Canadian solution to this Canadian problem.
Surely, we cannot continue importing individuals forever. Immigration is nothing more than an ineffective and costly placebo.
4. Economists have shown that Canadian immigrants are tax consumers rather than tax contributors5.
There is nothing more sensible than expecting our immigrants to exceed or at least match the income tax contributions of their fellow Canadians.
We live not far from our local food bank and on a daily basis witness a constant stream of newly-arrived immigrants dragging away suitcases of free food. Why should we import individuals who are not only unable to provide for themselves but who also require the extended assistance usually reserved for the most helpless in our society?
Helpless immigrants are arriving in our cities by tens of thousands and immediately become Canada’s neediest. This is hard to justify.
Our immigrants must be a net gain, not a net drain.
5. The notion of refugee must be redefined.
Canadian attitudes towards refugees were clearly expressed during the summer of 2010 when nearly 500 Tamils landed on the shores of B.C. in one of the most blatant cases of asylum shopping in recent memory. The case galvanized public opinion. Both, immigrants and native-born, were appalled at the idea that Canada was considering granting the Tamils asylum who could have simply crossed the 29 kilometers long Palk Strait into the Indian state of Tamil Nadu rather than travel over 12,000 kilometers over the ocean to finally arrive in Canada.
The clear impracticality and ridiculousness of this voyage says something about the status of refugees today, many of whom cross several countries or even oceans in order to shop for asylum.
A true refugee should seek refuge in the nearest contiguous safe country, not halfway around the world. They should then plan a return home once the crisis has been resolved.
Continuing to accept persecuted dissidents and political reformers, Western nations are harming or even negating the chances that these individuals will change their countries for the better. Imagine if Mahatma Gandhi, Aung Suu Yin or Nelson Mandela had sought refuge abroad rather than fighting to improve the social conditions in their homelands. The fact that these heroes resolved to remain in their countries in spite of adversity speaks to the importance of encouraging national reformers to work from inside.
Are we not destroying opportunities for improvement in troubled lands by encouraging mass migration rather than social change?
6. Many of Canada’s immigrants constitute a deadly brain drain from the world’s developing countries. It is inhumane and immoral to tempt these skilled and educated individuals to leave the homelands that so desperately need them. We are simply stealing the future of these countries for the supposed benefit of our own.
It is not far-fetched to claim that Canadian immigration, as practised today, is a form of White Supremacy.
Canada, along with a handful of other white, Western nations, is complicit in poaching the most well-educated classes from developing countries under the pretense of our own national interest. We are guilty of maintaining this brain drain policy that is detrimental to the world’s neediest.
Summary tables – Permanent and Temporary Residents, 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita), The World Bank
No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young, C.D. Howe Institute
Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State 2011, Fraser Institute (Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady)