TSCE #7: UN Research Into Smuggling and “Irregulars” (Cont’d)

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

(UN insists terrorists be allowed to return home)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: UN blurs line between smuggling & “irregular”.

CLICK HERE, for UNODC on smuggling migrants.
CLICK HERE, for a UN guide in circumventing the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for UN guide: details on S3CA loopholes.
CLICK HERE, for UN insisting terrorists be repatriated.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal mass invasion (caravans) into the U.S., despite knowing it is unwanted and illegal.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

2. Context For This Article

This is a continuation to the last article, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. While the basics were laid out before, there is so much more detail to be included. In fact, the UN has done a surprising amount of research on this topic.

Yet they seem to have learned nothing from this research, or the results are being deliberately ignored.

To reiterate from last time: it is extremely hypocritical for the UN to claim that they are AGAINST smuggling and trafficking of people, yet SUPPORT mass illegal entries (which they minimize as “irregular”).

The connection between “irregulars” (or illegal aliens) and smuggling is straight forward. Human smugglers are the people who facilitate and coordinate these mass movements of people. They directly cause these “irregulars”, which the UN demands Western nations provide for. However, the UN, and other groups condemn the smuggling that is at the heart of it. The illegal aliens themselves are willing participants.

The difference between traffickers and smugglers is one of consent. Smugglers take people against their will. While victims of trafficking are not to blame for their situation, they are not legal immigrants either. And calling them “irregulars” deliberately blurs the line here.

A cynic may wonder if the UN is speaking out both sides of its mouth: demanding that Western nations take hoards of people from the 3rd World, all while pretending to reject the smuggling that at least facilitates this mass invasion.

Now let’s get right into the rest of this review.

3. Direct Connection Between Smuggling/Illegals

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.

Yes, this has been brought up before, but it is designed to hammer the point home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.

4. Smuggling As A Business Model

2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides
. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

In some sense, this is quite obvious. Of course smuggling and trafficking are businesses, where the commodity being shipped is the people.

However, the solution seems almost designed to fail. Let’s focus on the institutions themselves and not the migrants?! If the migrants want what they view as a “better life” in Western nations, the demand will remain high. And as long as there is a demand, with customers willing to pay, then there will be people willing to take the risks.

The migration business theory seems still to be dominant in the literature analysing smuggling trends in North America, South-east Asia and the Pacific region, where smugglers are portrayed as “migration merchants”, while the smuggled migrants are considered clients paying for a service. However, it seems that academic views have evolved recently, with a greater number of authors, such as Zhang and Herman, looking at the role of family members and social networks in the smuggling process. While still endorsing the “migration business” theory, authors such as Doomernik and Kyle call for a more nuanced approach, as the empirical reality includes a mix of people with both altruistic and profit-making goals. empirical research led by Van liempt and Doomernik in the Netherlands in 2003 and 2004 looked at how smugglers of migrants may depict themselves as serving migrants rather than as profit-makers, despite the fees involved. equally, migrants may not use the word “smugglers” when they talk about the person who “helped” them. According to Aranowitz, the “mother of All Snakeheads”—a major Chinese smuggler is probably the symbol of the dual reality of smuggling of migrants, as she was a revered figure in New York’s Chinatown and considered a saint for “reuniting families”.

While this is interesting on some level, it does not change the basic reality. Helping to get people illegally into other countries is smuggling, regardless of whether it is driven by profit or humanitarian reasons.

5. Data From Interviews

3.2 Qualitative methodologies
3.2.1 Interviews with smuggled migrants
Methodological issues
Qualitative information can be extracted from various sources. For example, it can be the outcome of fact-finding missions carried out by researchers in source, transit and/or destination countries, involving interviews with actors in and witnesses of the smuggling process (migrants, migrants’ relatives and smugglers). The collection of direct information seems to be the most problematic, and research projects often require a combination of sources, such as interviews and police and court files.

Researchers may face difficulties in interviewing smuggled migrants and persons directly involved in the smuggling process. According to Düvell, Triandafyllidou and Vollmer, migrants are reluctant to participate, as they fear retaliation from smugglers and are also afraid that the information provided might be used against them and lead to deportation. Collyer, however, insists on the difficulties of getting a representative sample and of carrying out a proper interview, given the interviewees’ living conditions. Owing to these constraints, the interview technique varies greatly: while some researchers carry out observation in police stations or shelters, others conduct interviews on the basis of a standard questionnaire. Some academics use a mix of interviews and observations.

According to Heckmann, smuggled persons tend to cooperate in interviews when basic conditions are met, such as respect for anonymity, or when the interviewer is a person who comes from the same community as the smuggled person. Smuggled migrants may want to speak out of frustration with the smugglers or, after having achieved safe status, for political reasons. According to Bilecen, command of the migrant’s native language seems to be an imperative asset, together with being from the same community. Given the reluctance of smuggled migrants and smugglers, some authors have used tricks such as enrolling as social workers at the reception centre of Sangatte (France) or pretending to be irregular migrants.

Pretending to be a social worker or a fellow illegal is actually an interesting tactic. True, it is deception. But the entire presence and transport of these smuggled illegal aliens is based on deception, so it can be viewed as fighting fire with fire.

Of course getting direct information can be tricky. The entire point of these smuggling operations is …. wait for it …. to smuggle people. Giving direct and honest information can lead to their deportation, and to possible criminal charges as well.

Sure, speaking the same language can go a long way. Anyone familiar with police interrogations will tell you that having a connection with a suspect will help you get information.

3.2.2 Interviews with smugglers
There is a lack of research focusing on the smugglers’ perspectives that would allow insight into the subjective dimension of the phenomenon. According to Neske, this gap is understandable since smugglers are not interested in exposing themselves to publicity or law enforcement.

Yes, this is pretty obvious.

Now, let’s address some estimates about the size and scale of human smuggling and trafficking across borders.

6. Scope Of Int’l Smuggling

4. The scope of smuggling of migrants
Bearing in mind the methodological limitations on estimating the movement of smuggled migrants in the broader context of irregular migration, this chapter will outline quantitative information about the extent of smuggling of migrants with a focus on sub-regions and key countries. This information is scattered and/or imprecise for two reasons. Firstly, reports often mix up statistics on and refer interchangeably to irregular migration, trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants. Secondly, quantitative assessments are limited mainly to smuggling towards industrialized Western countries, while intraregional movements in the southern hemisphere are largely ignored.

This chapter then looks at the current state of knowledge regarding smuggling routes. The literature reviewed reveals a dual perspective. On the one hand, the “traditional” view holds that all smuggling trends are converging towards the industrialized Western States. This perspective is dominant in the literature published in the early 1990s. On the other hand, more recent research shows that smuggling routes are far more diverse and that Western-centric views may not accurately represent the complex dynamics of smuggling of migrants. In any case, the routes outlined below provide only an overview of smuggling routes as described in the literature. Further details about the organization of sea, air and land movements are provided in chapter 9.

The report says that “irregular migrants” (who are really illegal aliens) get mixed up with people who are smuggled and trafficked. It seems that the authors are the ones contributing to this problem. They repeatedly try to make a distinction where none exists.

Part of the assumption that illegals head to Western nations is the fact that they have the best social programs. They also have lawyers and others who work hard to circumvent national laws. Heading to the West offers the best rate of return in most cases.

It will be interesting to read onward and see where these additional routes are. True, there is the belief that smuggling and trafficking heads mostly here.

The report spends some time giving estimates of the number of illegals in various regions. However, it is clear that these are estimates (often conflicting estimates) and that they have few real answers.

7. Profile Of Smuggled Migrants

5.1 General profile of smuggled migrants
5.1.1 Social and educational background
According to figures in the IOM World Migration Report 2008, the vast majority of migrants around the world are young people, including a great proportion of underage persons. many developing countries have very young populations: in most African countries and many in Asia, about half of the population is under the age of 14. As stressed by Doomernik and Kyle, such countries encourage their young people to emigrate since they are facing severe underemployment and unemployment. Some authors have considered the role of State authorities—in particular in the Philippines and Spain—in migrant-exporting schemes. Although there are no consolidated global figures on the age pyramid of smuggled migrants, the figures shown by regional research tend to confirm that smuggled migrants are usually recruited from the young population.

There are diverging views about the social and educational backgrounds of smuggled migrants. According to authors such as Aronowitz, smuggled persons are usually the most disadvantaged in their own countries, with poor job skills or little chance of successful employment at home. They are often women and children, as shown by the smuggling and trafficking patterns in countries in eastern and Central Europe and West Africa. According to IOM, research on the profile of persons using the service of smugglers in Central Asia would present similar characteristics.

We are getting some honesty here, and it undermines a major narrative of the asylum pushers. A large amount of people claiming to be refugees fleeing persecution are actually economic migrants seeking a better life. While it is understandable that people want to make better lives for themselves, it does not translate into a “right” to migrate.

8. Profile Of Smugglers Themselves

6. Profiles of smugglers of migrants
The main objective of this chapter is to look at the social background of smugglers of migrants and their motivations. It will highlight the similarities and differences in the profiles of smugglers in different parts of the world. Because of the lack of information and the diversity of situations, the present review refrains from drawing general conclusions about the social and educational background of the persons involved in migrant-smuggling activities. Regional profiles of smugglers will be established according to analyses of law enforcement activities or information gathered directly from smugglers. Complementary information is provided in chapter 9.

6.3 Conclusions
There is a striking lack of information regarding the profile of smugglers. Scholars’ views can be divided into a criminological and a sociological perspective. The information about the smugglers is based mainly on police and court records and, to a lesser extent, on interviews with migrants. Some recent research includes a psychological perspective, including interviews with the smugglers about their motivations and background. Research based on interviews with smugglers should be further developed, as it provides subjective insight into the migrant-smuggling phenomenon

There are a lot of generalities in this. But a few conclusions from the chapter:

(a) Smugglers never give the full truth about their operations, as it would lead to the authorities easily disrupting them.
(b) Greatest trust happens when smuggler and their “migrants” come from the same communities and speak the same language.
(c) Some do it purely for money, and others are driven — at least partly — by altruistic reasons. It seems to act as a self-rationalization.

9. Organizational Details Of Smuggling

8. Organizational structures of smuggling networks
This chapter considers typologies of organizational structures and actors involved in
migrant-smuggling activities and highlight similarities and differences in the organizational
structures of smuggling networks in different parts of the world
. It then looks into details of how smugglers are organized in different parts of the world and reviews information about factors that influence the way smugglers are organized and elements that guide their evolution. Finally, it reviews information available to determine whether migrant-smuggling markets are increasingly dominated by transnational organizations.

8.1 General analysis of organizational structures of smuggling networks
8.1.1 Typology of structures
From a general standpoint, the literature has taken a great interest in the organizational structure of smuggling networks. Intergovernmental organizations and national administrations have published or sponsored research on this issue in order to increase the capacity to investigate and prosecute smuggling-related offences. The literature reviewed shows that smuggling of migrants can take many organizational forms, as indicated by the great diversity of concepts used to describe it. According to Heckmann, the methodology presented in the literature on smuggling of migrants is rather weak and often uses vague and ad hoc concepts, such as “the smuggling industry”, “migrant merchants”, “mom and pop smugglers” and “organized crime”.

8.3 Conclusions
Sources reviewed reveal a great disparity in the quantity and the quality of information about the organization of smuggling networks. Few regions have been researched, and there is often a critical lack of comprehensive and up-to-date research available. Specific research has not been carried out in North and West African countries; and investigative and judicial data from european sources have been used. Further research should be developed in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the organization of smuggling networks around the world.

Some useful information is contained in the chapter.

While there are areas that are under researched, it may be that the methods used are similar to those that are more documented in other nations. After all, how many techniques can there be that are totally novel?

10. Human & Social Costs

10.1 Human costs
The literature reviewed is highly critical of the law enforcement strategy currently deployed at the maritime borders of EU, which is deemed to be both inefficient in preventing irregular migration and inhumane towards the migrants. According to Spijkerboer, increased border controls have led to the loss of more lives, and further tightening of external EU borders will intensify this trend. Heckmann stresses that improved border control measures have contributed to establishing a low-cost segment of the market, in which smugglers endanger the health and lives of the smuggled migrants. This opinion is shared by authors such as Carling, monzini, eylemer and Şemşit, to name but a few.

10.2 Social costs The literature reviewed provides little information on the social costs of smuggling of migrants, except in respect of Africa. The high failure rate of internal journeys in Africa seems to indicate that, in many situations, migration can drain local resources and leave the country of origin and the communities of co-nationals abroad even more impoverished than before. most migrants depart with the savings of their family and loans from friends, making their migration a long-term investment. If they find themselves in difficulty during the trip, they ask for more money and often have it transferred in order to pay for later stages of the journey. The sums, for the country of origin, are often very high and dry up the family economy for years. Therefore, according to Beneduce, in recent decades the geography of migration has changed, and the geography of humanitarian problems recently associated with irregular migration (poverty, exploitation, segregation and abuse) is changing as well. many of the migrants or asylum-seekers caught between the economic demands of the smugglers and a permanent fear of being arrested and deported by the authorities, are impoverished and become “stranded”.

This is one of the main arguments against immigration in general. What happens to those other nations when the wealthy and able people leave? What happens when their family wealth is drained?

As for the costs, one piece of the puzzle is left out: what about those 1st world nations who are now forced to cope with large numbers of “refugees” or “irregular migrants” who have been smuggled in? The nations never invited them, and the people never gave any democratic mandate.

11. Final Thoughts On Report

Let’s start with the obvious question: for all the research that has been done, why doesn’t the UN do more to prevent illegal crossings? Instead, they do all they can to facilitate mass, illegal invasions and force host nations to cope.

Another thing to address: prosecuting or punishing smugglers is to be expected, but why should these migrants get a pass? If they are willingly participating, then they are accomplices. It is selfish to effectively reward such a system.

Why does the UN keep repeating the “refugee” lie, when its own research concludes that it is mainly economic migrants looking for better opportunity? The UN appears to be willingly complicit in this industry.

How would agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact impact this issue? Is the UN oblivious, or this a deliberate attempt to make human smuggling easier? Remember what is in it:

(Objective 4) Ensure migrants have identity papers
(Objective 5) Enhance pathways for migration
(Objective 11) Manage borders in “integrated” manner
(Objective 13) Detention only as a last resort
(Objective 15) Provide basic services for all migrants
(Objective 17) Educating media, censorship
(Objective 20) Make remittances easier/cheaper to send
(Objective 22) Forced to pay out pensions, social benefits

This UN treaty only makes it easier to smuggle people into countries like Canada. After all, if we are required to provide social benefits, can’t lock them up, and can’t even criticize it, then what will discourage it?

TSCE #6: UN Blurs The Line Between Smuggling & “Irregular” Migrants

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

(UN insists terrorists be allowed to return home)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for UNODC on smuggling migrants.
CLICK HERE, for a UN guide in circumventing the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for UN guide: details on S3CA loopholes.
CLICK HERE, for UN insisting terrorists be repatriated.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal mass invasion (caravans) into the U.S., despite knowing it is unwanted and illegal.

2. UN Review On Smuggling Migrants

(Page 11)
1. Introduction
The purpose of this thematic review is to survey existing sources and research papers on smuggling of migrants and to provide a gap analysis of existing knowledge from a global perspective. Indeed, despite the fact that smuggling of migrants has attracted great media and political attention over the last two decades, there has not been any comprehensive analysis of the state of expert knowledge. Great confusion still prevails about what smuggling of migrants is within the global context of irregular migration.

To be honest, I wonder that myself. “Irregular migrants”, which are really illegal aliens, are being who have entered a country illegally, or who entered legally, but remained when their status changed. This could simply be trying to make a distinction where none exists.

Article 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol, requires States to criminalize both smuggling of migrants and enabling a person to remain in a country illegally in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, as well as to establish as aggravating circumstances acts that endanger the lives or safety or entail inhuman or degrading treatment of migrants. By virtue of article 5, migrants are not liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been smuggled. It is therefore understood that the Protocol aims to target smugglers, not the people being smuggled

So, are we to give a pass to the people being smuggled and only focus on the smugglers? What happens if the people being smuggled are a willing part of it?

From a sociological perspective, smuggling of migrants may then include every act on a continuum between altruism and organized crime. Doomernik defines smuggling of migrants as “every act whereby an immigrant is assisted in crossing international borders whereby this crossing is not endorsed by the government of the receiving state, neither implicitly nor explicitly”.

(Page 12)
To the extent that the literature available allows a distinction to be made, the issues of irregular migration and trafficking in persons are deliberately not covered per se by this thematic review, despite the fact that these phenomena are closely connected with smuggling of migrants in practice.

They are not immigrants, but aliens.

Again, it seems to be searching for a difference where none exists. Illegal aliens (or “irregular migrants” in UN duck-speak) are people who enter other countries illegally. People who knowingly aid these illegal aliens are people smugglers. The UN engages in this mangling of the language in order to attempt to separate the two.

(Page 15)
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.

The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academic community, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol. Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work.

In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents

Finally, we are getting some real honesty. Smuggling helps to facilitate so called “irregular migrants”, who are really illegal aliens. Smugglers transport these aliens, and often obtain false documents for them.

Why doesn’t irregular migration have a universally accepted definition? Is it done deliberately to obscure what is going on?

(Page 15)
2.1.2 Trafficking in persons
Smuggling of migrants must also be differentiated from the concept of trafficking in persons, defined under article 3 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Trafficking in Persons Protocol) as: The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs

This is actually true. There is a difference between voluntarily arranging to come to another nation illegally, and being forced or coerced into doing so. This is a valid distinction.

(Page 18)
2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’

Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides
. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.

This is surprisingly well written. Smuggling and trafficking are businesses, and the people are the commodity. That being said, if the people are consenting to being smuggled, they are accomplices and not victims.

(Page 21)
The network theory also departs from the migration business theory by looking at the migrant as an actor in the migration process and not merely as an object, as in the organized crime theory. Van liempt and Doomernik have questioned the assumption that smuggled migrants are recruited by criminals and have little to say within the migration process. In their view, the relationship between the smugglers and the smuggled is more complex.

Looking at migrants as actors in the migration process, de Haas also insists on the need to depart from prejudiced views against smuggled migrants. According to him, rather than a desperate response to destitution, migration is generally a conscious choice made by relatively well-off
individuals to enhance their livelihoods
. Detailed discussions of migrants’ profiles and relationships with their smugglers are in chapters 5 and 7.

2.3 Conclusions
Sources reviewed reveal a strong interest among the academic community in analysing the
phenomenon of smuggling of migrants from a conceptual perspective. In particular, experts have debated the link between smuggling of migrants and other forms of transnational movement of persons—in particular irregular migration and trafficking in persons. Recent literature has also attempted to improve concrete understanding of smuggling of migrants through the conceptualization of the phenomenon as a migration business, a security threat or a family (network) business.

Some useful points:

Smuggling is not usually that of desperate people, but rather well-off individuals looking for a better life. The refugee system is being gamed.

Also, there is a clear link between these illegals (no they are not “irregular”) and the smuggling that facilitates this. To suggest otherwise is to blur reality.

The book is some 148 pages, and is far too long to go through in a single article, but do have a read.

3. UN Hypocrisy On People Smuggling

This cannot be overstated. It is extremely hypocritical for the UN to condemn human smuggling, while promoting and excusing so-called “irregular migration”. It is well known that many of these illegals come to the West by means of smuggling.

If smuggling itself is to be rejected by society as a whole, then why is it okay for the accomplices of these smugglers to reap the rewards that come from it?

The UN also insists that nations have an obligation to allow terrorists to return home. Needless to say this endangers the public greatly. You can’t simultaneously expect this, and for nations to have safe borders.

This same behaviour also happens on the U.S./Mexico border. In 2018, the UN facilitated large “caravans” of economic migrants with the intention of bringing them up through Central America and overwhelming the U.S. border. How does this respect national sovereignty in any way at all?

4. Organizing “Irregulars” is Smuggling

As much as the UN would like to blur the line, arranging for migrants to enter other nations without permission is smuggling.

The UN insists that all migrants (even if in these countries illegally) are entitled to basic services. As such, the UN advocates for smuggling. The only reasonable conclusion is that having all these amenities will lead to more people trying to enter illegally.

As much as they try to engage in mental gymnastics, the UN is directly involved in people smuggling. They promote policies that only ensure the smuggling (and trafficking) will continue indefinitely.

The UN document claimed that migration is a huge industry. They were absolutely right about that.

TSCE #5: UNHCR Is Party To Canada/U.S. S3CA. Consultations Mandatory

(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence, exploitation of women, children.

CLICK HERE, for the link from the UNHCR.
CLICK HERE, for other UN guidelines on how to exploit loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for review of abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for review of World Border Congress.
CLICK HERE, for review, suing for right to enter US illegally.
CLICK HERE, for review on “sanctuary” cities.
CLICK HERE, for true scale of illegals in U.S.: 22M?
CLICK HERE, for start up of amnesty program in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for challenge dismissed in closing loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal entry into the US.
CLICK HERE, for link to the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Government of Canada info on S3CA.

2. The Loophole Written Into S3CA

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

ARTICLE 1
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.

The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.

From the Government of Canada website, we find the following.

Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry.

3. More Loopholes In S3CA

Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.

Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?

4. UNHCR Is A Party To S3CA

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

5. UN Supports Caravans Into U.S.

For a walk down memory lane, let’s review what the U.N. was up to in the Fall of 2018.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In coordination with UN refugee agency UNHCR, he said “we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees, and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns,” he added.

Counting on its Mesoamerica Program – funded by the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration – IOM is now also able to provide voluntary return assistance to migrants.

“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America and the Caribbean explained, saying the “mixed migration flow” was driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection.

“Nevertheless,” he added, “we are concerned about the stress and demands that caravans place on the humanitarian community and the asylum systems of receiving countries, which ultimately have limited resources to face this challenge or to properly care for and protect migrants.”

According to local authorities, on Monday the Mexican government admitted a second caravan of approximately 1,800 Central Americans who initially started the regularization process, but later opted to continue the trek north without seeking asylum; a third caravan of around 500 Salvadorians crossed in on Tuesday, where most requested asylum; and a fourth group of some 1,700 individuals spent Thursday night in the Guatemalan town of Tecún Umán, on the border with Mexico.

This has been covered in previous articles. The U.N. thinks nothing of coordinating and facilitating massive “caravans” of migrants to dump into the United States, and completely overwhelm their social services and border guards.

The U.N. does not respect the sovereignty of the U.S.’s Southern border. With the above published manual, it becomes clear they don’t support the Northern border either.

6. Border Security Is A Joke

Our agreement with the United States comes with so many exceptions that it is pretty much useless. And if someone doesn’t meet one of the exceptions, they can just fly to New York, and take a cab to Roxham Road. The RCMP will dutifully greet them like bellhops.

Despite the UNCHR deliberately acting to destroy Western borders, the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was drafted in such a way that they are guaranteed a seat at any reviews and modifications that come up.

Not only does the U.N. work to undermine sovereign nations, but they are sure to publish guidebooks to make it easy.

Of course, the illegal aliens entering Canada through underhanded means is nothing compared to the vast LEGAL immigration which is effectively population replacement.

Previously a Federal Court Prothonotary ruled that a citizen has no public or private standing to demand the Court take action against the government. That is being appealed.

The Western World is facing some serious challenges, to put it very mildly. Our politicians, media, and courts are stacked against us.

Joel Wood And The Carbon Tax “Options” (Climate Change Scam #12)

(For an audio of the talk)

(Joel Wood is a member of the Koch funded Fraser Institute)

(He is also a professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC)

(At the library talk)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s announcement in May 2019.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s Fraser Institute profile.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s TRU profile.
CLICK HERE, for Joel Wood’s website.
CLICK HERE, for a paper Wood co-authored on co-fluctuation patterns.
CLICK HERE, for paper on raising the gas taxes.
CLICK HERE, for a paper on indoctrinating university students..

Previous Articles On Scam
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for Part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai explains the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Publications Listed On TRU Biography

McKitrick,R. & Wood, J. (in press). An examination of the relationship between air quality and income in Canada. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Tsigaris, P. & Wood, J. (2016). A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students. International Review of Economics Education, 23: 65-81.

Wood, J. (2015). Is it time to raise the gas tax? Optimal gasoline taxes for Ontario and Toronto. Canadian Public Policy, 43(3): 179-190.

Wood, J. (2015). When a ban is not a ban: The case of British Columbia’s log export restrictions. Economics Bulletin 35(2): 1071-1075.

Mckitrick, R.& Wood, J. (2013). Co-fluctuation patterns of per capita carbon dioxide emissions: The role of energy markets. Energy Economics, 39: 1-12.

Wood, J. (2013). The effects of bailouts and soft-budget constraints on the environment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 54(1): 127-137.

Recent Newspaper Commentaries:

Wood,J. (2016, Mar 2). Keep the carbon tax, but make sure it is revenue neutral. Vancouver Sun.

Wood,J. (2015, Sep 21). Raise the Gas Tax. National Post.

Wood,J. (2014, Jun 24). BC would gain from streamlined log export policies. Vancouver Sun.

3. Bogus “Science” At Core Of Scam

6CO2 + 6H2O + light ==> C6H12O6 + 6O2 (Photosynthesis)

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ==> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy (Respiration)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a necessary part in both photosynthesis and respiration. The idea that we must remove it from the atmosphere is moronic. Without an abundant supply of CO2, plants will die off.

Since “success” will mean the death of us all, it seems that “failure” will result in ever growing carbon taxes to combat this so-called existential threat to humanity.

Let’s take a look at some of the other publications that Joel Wood has released in recent years. What else has he been up to?

4. Paper On Co-Fluctuation Patterns On CO2

Our hypothesis is that energy prices transmit information across borders in such a way as to increase coordination of emission fluctuations. This is tested by examining the effect of energy prices on the index of homogeneity. We find evidence in support of the hypothesis; however, the pattern of emission fluctuations differs between developing and developed countries until the most recent time period (1984-2000). We then examine the effects of openness to trade and government intervention, and find that neither of these factors have an identifiable coordinating effect on emission fluctuations between countries. Overall the evidence suggests that emissions are strongly linked between countries, and we discuss what this may imply about future emission growth and global agreements to address climate change.

By finding out how pricing impacts energy usage, we will be able to manipulate and control behaviour to suit our agenda. After all, people can’t “pollute” if they can’t afford to do it. Never mind the bogus science behind all of this.

In the subsequent section we empirically investigate the co-fluctuation patterns of per capita CO2 emissions across countries, in particular looking at world energy prices as a coordinating mechanism for emission changes across countries. We then add in other indicators of openness to markets to examine the effect they play in coordinating emission variations.

When all of the wordiness is stripped down, it is one simple idea: manipulating energy prices in order to reduce “emissions” which means reduce usage of vehicles and equipment. In short, this is research into deliberately pricing machinery out of the reach of most people.

Source is here.

5. Paper On Raising Gas Taxes

This paper uses a representative agent model and Canadian data to calculate the
optimal gasoline taxes for Ontario and the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area (GTHA) in
a second-best setting with pre-existing distortionary income taxes. The results suggest
a second-best optimal gasoline tax of 40.57 cents per litre in 2006 Canadian dollars
for the GTHA that is much higher than the current tax rate of 24.7 cents per litre,
and also higher than recently proposed increases
. The resulting value is insensitive to
whether the additional revenue is used to reduce taxes on income or to incrementally
fund increased public transit infrastructure
(The Big Move plan). However, in the
absence of a regional tax, the second-best optimal gasoline tax for Ontario as a whole
of 28.51 cents per litre in 2006 Canadian dollars is slightly higher than the current tax
rate and in-line with proposed increases.

Gasoline taxes to be jacked up, and one option is to use to fund more public transit. In short, make driving more and more unaffordable, so you have no choice but to take transit. Source is here.

6. Paper On Brainwashing University Students

In this paper we develop the simplest integrated assessment model in order to illustrate to
undergraduate students the economic issues associated with climate change. The growth model
developed in this paper is an extension of the Solow model and includes a simple climate model.
Even though the model is very simple it is very powerful in its predictions
. Students explore
various scenarios illustrating how economic activity today will inflict damages on future
generations. But students also observe that future generations will be richer than today’s
generation due to productivity growth and population stabilization. Hence, the richer future
generations will not be as rich as they would be without climate change
. Since the cost of action
is absorbed by the current generation and the benefits of action accrue to future generations
students can conduct a cost-benefit analysis and explore the importance of the discount rate.

Due to the persistence of GHGs in the atmosphere, the climate change problem is
characterized by the issue of inter-generational equity
: The current generation is imposing
external costs on future generations and would have to forego some economic growth to limit
those costs. But at the same time, it is also characterized by issues of intra-generational equity, for example, rich nations which are relatively GHG intensive are located in temperate climates
and have the funds and strong institutions to more easily adapt to climate change
; whereas,
poorer nations, say in sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to be hit relatively harder by the negative
impacts of higher temperatures.

Source is here.

As was shown in the Paris Accord (read Article 9 in particular), this climate change scam is all about a massive wealth redistribution. It was little, if anything to do with protecting the environment, and is just a way to levy global taxes.

7. Thoughts On The Kamloops Presentation

While a number of different “solutions” were proposed, they all came down to the same thing: paying huge sums of money to the government (and by extension the U.N.) for something that won’t make air quality better.

Interesting, Joel never once discussed the science behind the climate change agenda, only different patterns to implement tariffs and taxes. But then, that’s what it was always about.

Arguments To Appeal Dismissal in S3CA Challenge (Unedited Version)

1. Quotes From Prothonotary’s Dismissal

2. Previous Links

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.

NOTE: This is an unedited version of the written submission.
There is further editing and changes being made.

PART I. ISSUES

(1) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make overriding palpable error saying the Plaintiff’s claim was based on personal opinions, without material facts?

(2) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law in finding there is no public or private standing in the matter?

(3) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not taking facts alleged as proven, at least in the preliminary stages?

(4) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by overreaching, and striking out a Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and involves in depth analysis of law? Prothonotaries are not Judges or Justices.

(5) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not allowing for amendments?

(6) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not considering arguments of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence, or constitutional issues prior to striking?

(7) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by allowing procedural rules to unjustly hinder a self represented litigant?

Standard For Review

(8) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.

(9) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.

PART II. FACTS

(10) In December 2002, Canada and the United States signed the “Safe Third Country Agreement” (the S3CA). This was in effect an agreement to prevent “asylum shopping” by forcing alleging to be refugees to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in.

(11) In December 2004, the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) legally took effect between Canada and the United States. This is not disputed by the other side.

(12) However, due to a “loophole” in the agreement, the rules apparently do not apply if a “refugee” simply bypasses official border ports of entry. In other words, enter Canada from the U.S. at any place other than an official port, then different rules apply. The result has been fake refugees entering from the U.S. and attempting to claim asylum.

(13) Instead of turning people away attempting to enter Canada from the United States, this loophole has made it easier for people to enter the country and submit asylum applications here. This completely defeats the purpose of having the agreement in the first place.

(14) The United States considers many thousands of asylum applications every year (see Exhibit A). It is because of this, and because of how legitimate asylees are treated, Canada as made this Safe Third Country Agreement in the first place.

(15) The claim that the Plaintiff’s assertions are just personal opinions is false. The ruling by Prothonotary Milczynski of that is complete nonsense. Here are some examples.

(16) The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has reported (see Exhibit B) that at least 50,000 people have entered Canada in just the last 2 years, coming from all countries.
Close to 50,000 have come into Canada in just two years at Roxham Road, stepping across the border at the unauthorized crossing.

But the majority of those who come here to Plattsburgh, N.Y., by bus, train or plane have spent little time in the U.S., arriving on tourist visas with the intent of treading the footpath to Canada.

When CBC News visited the crossing recently, in one day we met families and single travellers from Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, as well as a Palestinian family from the occupied territories. Some arrived with what appeared to be fresh baggage tags from overseas flights into New York. Others had made their way north from Mexico, South and Central America.

They often prearrange taxis in Plattsburgh for the half-hour ride to the border. Since 2017, the route has become so normalized that taxi companies are branding themselves as border shuttles. A sign on one taxi van brazenly reads “Refugee Border.” Another reads “Roxham Border – LaColle Border” and advertises a group rate, with each ride costing between $60 and $80 US, a lucrative and steady business.

(17) But perhaps CBC is just faking the article. Perhaps all of this really the Plaintiff’s opinion (sarcasm). But moving on, the United Nations has published freely available articles on Roxham Road in Quebec. One such article (see Exhibit C) reads that at least 20,000 people have entered Canada illegally just in the Summer of 2017:

The 48-year old man, who used to work for Oxfam Quebec in Haiti, is one of the estimated five thousand Haitians who, in the hot summer days of 2017, walked into Canada via Roxham Road at the U.S.-Canada border. Together with these Haitians, some 20,000 people crossed into Canada via Roxham Road that summer, making it the main entry point into Canada for asylum seekers crossing the border irregularly.

(18) The United Nations, in this article, estimates that at least 20,000 people crossed into Canada illegally in just the Summer of 2017 at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is the United Nations’ own estimate. Not my imagination or opinion, as Prothonotary Milczynski has stated. Moving on, the Toronto Star has also written about the problem (Exhibit D) and writes that people are entering from Roxham Road every day in Canada.

Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, migrants who came to the U.S. from across the globe — Syria, Congo, Haiti, elsewhere — arrive here where Roxham Rd. dead-ends so they can walk into Canada, hoping its policies will give them the security they believe the political climate in the United States does not.

“In Trump’s country, they want to put us back to our country,” said Lena Gunja, a 10-year-old from Congo, who until this week had been living in Portland, Maine. She was travelling with her mother, father and younger sister. “So we don’t want that to happen to us, so we want a good life for us. My mother, she wants a good life for us.”

(19) The Toronto Star not only details the illegals (fake refugees) crossing into Canada from the US, but documents a family who was coming to Canada simply because they feared deportation because they were living in the U.S. illegally.

(20) Next, Global News covered Toronto Mayor John Tory on the topic of border jumpers, (see Exhibit E). He has said that homeless shelter beds are being filled up with illegals, and it has cost at least $64.5 million:

“But that goal is simply not achievable if the other governments, especially the federal government, don’t step up and take much greater responsibility to help us in an area of their jurisdiction. The status quo is simply not acceptable.”

City officials say the number of refugee claimants in Toronto’s shelter system has increased from 459 (11.2 per cent of the total system) in 2016 to 2,351 (37.6 per cent of the total system) in April 2018.
Tory said that if the level of refugees arriving in Toronto continues to rise, the city projects it will incur $64.5 million in direct costs related to providing shelter and housing.

(21) CTV news has also written about the cost of these fake refugees. Here (Exhibit F) is one of their submissions:

OTTAWA — The federal government has spent over $270 million on irregular border crossers over the last year and a half, according to government figures submitted to the parliamentary budget office.
The figures were requested by parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette in early July and were recently released to members of the immigration committee.

All four agencies involved in dealing with irregular migration submitted amounts they have spent every month since early 2017 when the influx of asylum seekers began to ramp up. The total adds up to more than $270 million up to the end of June.

(22) Both the Conservative Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada have made pledges to close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement (Exhibits G and H). This is to prevent more illegal crossings. But perhaps it is their opinions as well that this is happening.

(23) Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruled that the Plaintiff is stating personal opinions and personal beliefs. For this conclusion to be true, all of the following entities would have to be lying:
(a) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
(b) Global News
(c) CTV News
(d) Toronto Star
(e) City of Toronto
(f) Toronto Mayor John Tory
(g) Conservative Party of Canada, and its members
(h) People’s Party of Canada, and its members

(24) Of course, this is only a small sample of the media, print, photographic and video evidence available about the illegal border crossings going on, particularly at Roxham Road, QC. Even the simplest of online searches would have found a wealth of information corroborating what the Plaintiff alleges.

(25) Also, part of Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruling is confusing. She states (accurately) that I have concerns about illegal immigration and fake refugees gaming the system. That part is true. But then she goes on to state that these are bare assertions. Does she think the Plaintiff is making up the entire thing?

PART III. LAWS ON THE SUBJECT

Standard For Review

(26) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.

Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc33/2002scc33.html
(27) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.

(28) Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, [2017] 1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)

[66] In Housen, the Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review applicable to decisions of trial judges. More particularly, it concluded that with respect to factual conclusions reached by a trial judge, the applicable standard was that of palpable and overriding error. It also stated that with respect to questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law, where there was an extricable legal principle at issue, the applicable standard was that of correctness (paragraphs 19 to 37 of Housen).

[69] I am therefore of the view that there is no reason why we should not apply to discretionary orders of prothonotaries the standard applicable to similar orders by motions judges. I am supported in this view by our decision in Imperial Manufacturing, where we applied the Housen standard in reviewing the discretionary decision of a motions judge, namely her determination of a motion for particulars regarding certain allegations made in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim.

(29) In this case, Prothnotary Milczynski made both errors of fact, and errors of law.

(30) First, the errors of fact. The biggest one is the stating that the Plaintiff is making bald assertions, is being argumentative, and is stating personal opinions. This is completely wrong.

(31) People are coming into Canada illegally, that has been thoroughly documented. The fact that it happens, and estimates about the scale and costs are all public knowledge. Yet Prothonotary shrugs this off as “opinion”.

(32) The Statement of Claim (as I understand it) is not supposed to include evidence. That is to come later. Moreover, when responding to the motion to strike (via Rule 221) evidence is not supposed to be submitted, so that was not an option. How is a Plaintiff supposed to prove these facts when the Statement is struck out prior to it being allowed in? It was offered to do, if the Claim were allowed to be amended, but that didn’t happen.

(33) Prothnotary Milczynski’s ruling that facts were just “personal opinions” was a palpable error. It was an overriding one, causing the case to be thrown out prematurely.

Personal Standing

(34) The Government of Canada cited (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), arguing that a personal, private stake in the matter must be shown. Okay.

(35) From a purely financial point of view, the Plaintiff does not want to see her tax dollars being spent on people who have no right to be in the country in the first place. This includes people circumventing the law by going around official border crossings. While this seems superficial and cold, it is an improper use of taxpayer money. It was shown in earlier exhibits that social services “are” being accessed.

(36) Moving beyond that, letting people into the country who are unscreened is a danger to the Plaintiff’s well being. True, not everyone is violent, however the Plaintiff has an expectation that the Government will take reasonable steps to ensure the identities and security risks of people entering the country. Simply entering the country from the “warzone” of the United States claiming to be a refugee does not ensure her safety. Moreover, it is unclear what, if any, medical screening these people have undergone prior to coming to Canada. Again, they just show up and claim to be fleeing persecution.

(37) Also, allowing fake refugees to enter from the United States cheapens the Plaintiff’s citizenship. Being Canadian is supposed to come with privileges and rights that are unique to Canadians. Simply allowing anyone into Canada from the U.S. who “identifies” as a refugee undermines the process, and weakens what it means to be Canadian.

(38) Previous Counsel, Aman Owais, made the extremely false and disingenuous argument that because the Plaintiff is not a refugee she has no right to intervene, as her rights are not at stake. This was an intentional straw-man argument. It was never about getting the Plaintiff into Canada as a refugee, but about protecting her (and Canada as a whole) from abuse of the refugee process.

(39) Regarding a public standing (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), has issued a 3 point test to determine standing:
(a) the existence of a serious justiciable issue;
(b) whether the Plaintiff has a real or genuine interest in the matter;
(c) whether the proceeding is an effective means of bringing it to the court

(40) First point, yes there is a serious, justiciable issue. Maintaining an actual border with the power to exclude people is important. Prothonotary Milczynski has stated that it is not a sufficient issue to bring to court. Wrong. As stated in the earlier submissions, we have borders for a reason, and it is to protect the citizens from outsiders. This is not xenophobic, but simple reality. How can the Government offer its citizens any level of safety and security if it cannot control who comes into the country? Only the most obtuse or contrarian person would argue that there is not serious issue about having borders that exclude people without a right to be in the country.

(41) Far from being the work of a “busybody”, asking the Court to enforce existing laws is vital to the well being of the nation. Indeed, being able to secure its perimeter is arguably the most important function a Government should have. Instead, it is fighting efforts to compel it to do so.

(42) Second point, yes, the Plaintiff has a genuine interest in the matter. She is concerned over the problem of illegal immigration into Canada, which is largely at — but not exclusive to — Roxham Road. She in concerned about the money being spent on this (both her and others), the security risk that large numbers of illegals pose, and the cheapening of the Canadian citizenship. It is nonsense to suggest that bringing this matter to the court — at her own time and expense — isn’t a real interest. Protecting your nation’s borders isn’t “busybody” work, it’s what any true patriot should see as important.

(43) Third point, is this an effective means of bringing it to the Court? Yes. What is being asked of the Court is to order the Government of Canada to enforce existing laws and to stop illegal immigration into this country. This case only covers ILLEGAL immigration, which as should be obvious, is illegal. Courts get asked to enforce laws, or order enforcement every day. The only difference here is the scale of the enforcement that is being asked of it. And if not the Court, then who exactly is to remedy a problem when the Government itself won’t act?

(44) Rules 17 and 25 of the Federal Courts Act give the Plaintiff the ability to file here. The Federal Court does have jurisdiction

17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.
Extraprovincial jurisdiction

25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

(45) Think about how ridiculous this matter is: the Government of Canada has to be taken to court to enforce its own laws regarding border security. The Court is being asked to force the Government to enforce its own laws. The Judiciary has long been recognized as a “check and balance” against the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government.

(46) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when ruling that the Plaintiff had no standing, wither publicly or in private to bring the case. She seems to view it as an opinion that nations need borders.
Unjust Enrichment, Unconscionability

(47) The Plaintiff also raised the issue of unjust enrichment. If you accept the fact that fake refugees are coming into Canada and receiving social benefits (as was demonstrated in the “facts” section), then how is this not unjust enrichment? How is taking something that one is not entitled to anything but unjust? Courts have the power to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and typically they do.

(48) Beyond unjust enrichment, consider the doctrine on unconscionability. If the Safe Third Country Agreement is to be worded — as the Government suggested before — that putting this loophole was intentional, does that not violate good public policy? Should agreements that act against public interest not be amended or voided as appropriate. If that was the case (and it appears to be just another excuse) then the agreement was invalid to begin with.

(49) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when not appropriately considering the argument of unjust enrichment, or unconscionability

(50) Prothonotary Milczynski also erred in law when striking out a matter that is not simple, or established law. It is well established that this is not appropriate

(51) In Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, the Ontario Court of Appeals reversed an order to strike out a Statement of Claim, stating that:

In my opinion, none of the above conclusions should be made at this stage of the proceedings. The threshold for sustaining a pleading under rule 21.01(1)(b) is not a high one. Much of the argument before us was directed to the lack of a factual underpinning for the causes of action alleged, particularly as to the damages issue. This is a matter to be resolved on the evidence called at the trial: see Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police (Commissioner) (1990), 1990 CanLII 7000 (ON CA), 73 O.R. (2d) 664, 38 O.A.C. 270 (C.A.). It is also accepted that the fact that a cause of action could be a novel one is not a bar to its proceeding to trial: see Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321. The categories of relationships giving rise to fiduciary duties are not closed nor are the categories of negligence in which a duty of care is owed: see Guerin v. R., 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335 at p. 383, 13 D.L.R. (4th) 321 at p. 341; International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., 1989 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574 at pp. 596-97, 61 D.L.R. (4th) 14 at p. 61, and 34 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed. (1980), para. 5 at p. 8

(52) Although this case was an Ontario one, the same principle can be applied to Federal cases as well. Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.

(53) In the COMER case, it was argued, that:

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(56) This reasoning absolutely applies here.
(a) No previous ruling, on point, was ever argued by the Defense. They never attempted to claim that this has been settled.
(b) To reiterate, claims made by a Plaintiff must be taken as proven, at least initially.
(c) New cases do result in laws changing over time, and the Courts accept that principle.
(d) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are difficult to prove.
(e) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are novel.

(57) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just. If there were errors or confusion in the original Statement of Claim, it would have been better corrected by allowing an Amended Statement of Claim. Prothonotary Milczynski erred in not at least allowing the option. Certainly whether the Federal Government can be ordered to enforce its own laws regarding border security is an issue worthy of the Court’s attention.

(58) Striking out a claim in such an important and complex matter should be above the ability of a Prothonotary, and it is.

Negligence

(59) Also worth noting is that failing to secure the border could be viewed as negligence by the Court. Negligence, broadly speaking, is a 3 part test:
(a) A duty of care is owed
(b) That duty of care is breached
(c) Harm results from breaching the duty of care

(60) I would argue that the Government does owe a duty of care to the Canadian public. Securing the Federal borders and excluding people not legally allowed to enter is the essence of that duty. By allowing illegals into the country, the Government is breaching that duty of care. Yes, harm is resulting. This comes from taxes being used to support illegals, reduced security of the people, and the general cheapening of the Canadian citizenship.

Peace, Order, Good Government (POGG, Section 91)

(61) The Plaintiff submits that allowing people to enter Canada illegally, and at taxpayer expense, violates the POGG Doctrine. Morally, the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. Also, if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into our country is doing no one any favours. We can’t provide safety to people fleeing persecution if anyone can enter as well

(62) We have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce

(63) Yes, there are some generalizations in the above paragraphs, but we have obligations: both to Canadians, and to legitimate refugees. Simply letting people bypass border controls is not a good way to govern a country.

Self Represented Litigants/Accused People

(64) Since the Supreme Court ruling of Pintea v. Johns, (which endorsed the statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council), it has been practice for courts to go the extra mile to ensure that procedurals rules are not used to unjustly hinder. The ruling also allows for Court officials to explain rules and options to self-represented persons.

(65) Opportunities to amend a claim, or make changes as the Court requires, are granted all the time to lawyers. A self-rep should be given no less consideration. If anything, Courts should be inclined to cut them a break.

(66) This is not an attempt to have the Court “make my case”. Rather, it is to ensure the issues originally raised (illegal immigration) actually have their day in Court. Since our Federal Government seems to have little interest in enforcing our borders, it’s time for another opinion.

Summary Of Errors

(67) Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding, palpable error in ruling the facts alleged by the Plaintiff were bare assertions, and personal opinions. No opportunity to introduce evidence had been available up to that point.

(68) Prothonotary Milczynski further made several errors of law including:
(a) wrongly applying the standard of public and private standing. It assumes that there is no public or private interest by the Plaintiff in stopping illegal immigration, and hence ruled on the entire case. An overreach.
(b) Striking out the Statement of Claim when facts alleged by the Plaintiff were supposed to be taken as proven, at least in preliminary stages. This is well settled case law.
(c) Striking out the Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and complicated. That is a serious overreach for a Prothonotary. They are not judges, and not supposed to behave as such. Again, settled case law.
(d) Not allowing the Plaintiff an attempt to prove the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim, or allowing an amended Statement to be filed. Again, facts alleged are supposed to be taken as true in early stages.
(e) Not at least considering the claims of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence or any constitutional question. However, she ruled everything to be opinion anyway.
(f) Not giving any consideration to a self-represented litigant, consistent with the Pintea v. Johns principles.

PART IV: AUTHORITIES

[1] Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2014 FC 380 (CanLII)
[2] Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA)
[3] Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, [2017] 1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)
[4] Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)
[5] Pintea v. Johns, [2017] 1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

CBC Propaganda #17: Climate Change Eugenics, And Population Control

(CBC article openly suggesting population control & reduction)

(Tracking world population over time)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the CBC article on population control.

Previous CBC Propaganda Articles
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #1, Canada must have 100 million people by the year 2100.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #2, Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #3, Islam not responsible for Islamic violence.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #4, The Wage Gap.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #5: Borders Are Pointless.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #6: State Supplied Drugs For Addicts.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #7: UN’s Call to Welcome Back ISIS fighters.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #8: Walls Are Useless. Don’t Bother.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #9: “Conspiring” With Free Speech Activist.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #10: World Hijab Day, celebrating a symbol of oppression as “diversity”.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #11: A Hit Piece That Conflates Sarcasm With Sincerity.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #12: Judy Sgro Shrugs Off Ethics Concerns.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #13, Charities Free To Engage In Political Spending.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #14, encouraging total demographic replacement of Canadians.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #15, free drugs for prison inmates.
CLICK HERE, for Propaganda #16, $2B of Pension Fund Spent in Mumbai, India.

2. Spoiler: Climate Change Industry A Scam

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord.

As has been thoroughly explained and documented here previously, the climate change industry is a business. The entire “industry” requires deceiving the public in order to be successful. At the heart of it is a business opportunity: to make a lot of money at the expense of preying on people’s good intentions.

While profit is certainly a plausible motive for running this scam, the article suggests another. Is population reduction and control the real motivation behind creating this “crisis”?

3. U.N. Population Replacement Agenda

CLICK HERE, for tracing the steps of U.N. population replacement agenda over the last 50 years.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.
CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”.
CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.

UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

4. Quotes From The Article

Climate change has taken global centre stage in recent months following three reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that paint a dire picture of the future should governments fail to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been predicting the end of the world for decades. Not to brag, but we’re still here. This is more fearmongering.

But when the discussion turns to modifying our behaviours in order to reduce CO2 emissions in order to keep the planet from warming 1.5 C or 2 C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold that would result in widespread damage, one word creeps up more often than not: overpopulation.

You need Carbon Dioxide (CO2), to sustain plant life.

The argument is that if there were fewer people on Earth, greenhouse gases would be reduced and climate change could be averted. But experts say population control isn’t the panacea some think it might be.

“It is a very complicated, multifaceted relationship. Population issues certainly are an important dimension of how society will unfold, how society will be able to cope with this crisis over the course of this century,” said Kathleen Mogelgaard, a consultant on population dynamics and climate change and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland.

A consultant on both:
(a) climate change; and
(b) population dynamics?

What could possibly go wrong?

“But it’s not a silver bullet, and it’s certainly not the main cause of climate change. And fully addressing population growth is not, on its own, going to be able to solve the climate crisis. But it is an important piece of the puzzle.

“Is population an issue in climate change? Absolutely. Is it underreported, underrated, under-talked-about as an issue in climate change? Absolutely,” Engelman said. “If it were just Adam and Eve on the planet, they could fly a 747 around the world 24/7 and heat Mar-a-Lago and 25 other homes with coal, and it wouldn’t make a difference.”

But he notes population control alone “won’t solve” climate change.

Alone. Key word. It will take more than just population control. That implies that it will be part of the solution.

“It’s one of a number of things that needs to be considered as we try to address or respond to this incredibly difficult problem that the world is facing. There’s no one thing that’s going to do it.”

No. People like yourself should stay away from writing, and of public policy in general. Your ideas are harmful to society as a whole.

Concern about overpopulation has been rather long-standing. One of the most familiar arguments, by Thomas Robert Malthus, dates back to 1798. In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus wrote that population growth would eventually surpass our ability to provide sustenance for the masses — a belief now known as Malthusianism.

The fear of overpopulation has even seeped into our pop culture: In the recent Marvel movies Avengers: Infinity War, the villain, Thanos, wants to eliminate half of the universe’s population in order to end suffering, such as starvation.

But Bricker believes it’s gone too far.

No kidding.

He’s particularly irked by recent stories about youth pledging not to have children; while many talk of fears over what the world will look like in the generations to come, still others point to population concerns.

The other thing to take into consideration about our growing population is that the issue isn’t so much about births, but rather about dying. Or more accurately not dying. Today, people are living longer.

So, should we withhold health care in certain cases in order to sped up the dying? Sort of sounds like the medical death squads Obamacare critics feared would come.

In China, for example, the average person lived to age 40 in 1950, Bricker said. According to the World Bank, the country’s average life expectancy is now 76.5, and by the mid-2030s, the average person should live to 80.

Access and education
One of the universal calls to prevent the global population from ballooning is to better educate women, particularly in developing countries.

“The key to achieving slower population growth is best done through a rights-based approach that includes educating girls and providing universal access to family planning and reproductive health services,” said Mogelgaard. “That is the best and most sustainable way to achieve reductions in fertility that leads to slower population growth.”

To anyone who doesn’t know “reproductive health services” is often a euphemism used to mean “abortion”. Slow the population growth by promoting abortion.

“Per capita is important,” he said. “One-third of the population already have lower per capita CO2 emissions than we do, and they’re dropping faster.”

Serious question: what happens when you reduce CO2 to the point where plant life is not sustainable anymore? Are you that dense, or is it just an excuse to promote your taxes and globalist agenda?

Instead of looking at population control as the biggest factor in the battle against climate change, experts say it’s about looking at better education for women, adopting cleaner energy and changing our overall consumption patterns, especially in developed countries.

Not ruling out the idea of population control and reduction, just saying there are some other approaches to consider as well.

There is no single solution.
“Just because we slow population growth, if we continue to use coal-fired power plants to generate electricity, or if we continue to cut down forests at the rate that we’re cutting down forests, those are going to be challenges regardless what the population is,” said Mogelgaard.

So population control and reduction is not the only solution, but apparently it is part of the puzzle. Yay, I suppose.

5. Photosynthesis Explained

This video explains the process of photosynthesis very well, and very quickly. This so-called “pollution”, Carbon Dioxide, is a critical part of that chemical process.

6. Population Control Read Agenda

Photosynthesis is a process that plants engage in to convert CO2 and H2O into sugars. It is necessary to sustain life. Remove the Carbon Dioxide and this does not work. Why engage in such obviously junk science unless there was some other goal?

As has been outlined previously, one of the main goals to use the money generated in Carbon taxes and other U.N. schemes to generate a slush fund which can create more wealth. In short, the public is being forced to subsidize these investment schemes.

Of course, the United Nations has been studying population dynamics since the 1950s. And guess what the solution they always propose? More immigration from the 3rd World to the 1st.

If Western nations were to indulge in population control, as suggested by the author, will we then be subjected to a bait-and-switch? Will lower birth rates be used as an excuse to import more of the 3rd World?

Creepy, nefarious, and evil.

Canadian Start-Up Visa: Purchasing Permanent Residence

(You can apply for temporary visa under International Mobility Program while permanent resident application is being considered)

(Doesn’t matter if the business fails, you still have your PR)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for about the process.
CLICK HERE, for minimum investment needed for start-up visa.
CLICK HERE, for after you have applied.
CLICK HERE, for temp visa under International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for what is an essential person?
CLICK HERE, for WHAT IF THE BUSINESS FAILS?

Previous Articles On Immigration
CLICK HERE, for mass/replacement migration at 1M/year in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK (Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Org).
CLICK HERE, for TD article on true scale of replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for student visas, PR pathway for entire families.

CLICK HERE, for Canada: amnesty for illegals pilot program in GTA.
CLICK HERE, for sanctuary cities circumventing borders.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in U.S., amnesty programs.

2. Get Funding “Then” Come To Canada

If I understand this correctly, you secure funding either from a Venture Capitalist or an Angel, and “then” you come to Canada to build your business. Okay, this seems very counterintuitive. Don’t Angels or Venture Capitalists want to see a successful business operation prior to investing in it?

So, is this some business that someone else has been running in Canada, or are you doing it primarily via the internet and teleconferencing?

Or are you so wealthy that you can simply buy a business in Canada, have other people run it, and then just come in

3. How Much Money Needed?

What is the minimum investment that I need to apply through the Start-up Visa Program?
If the investment comes from a designated Canadian venture capital fund, you must secure a minimum investment of $200,000.
If the investment comes from a designated Canadian angel investor group, you must secure a minimum investment of $75,000.
You don’t need to secure a financial investment from a business incubator. You must be accepted into a Canadian business incubator program.

4. List Of Supporting Organizations

List of designated organizations – start up visa
To apply for the Start-up Visa Program, your business idea or venture must get the support of one or more of the designated organizations listed below:
1) Venture capital funds
2) Angel investor groups
3) Business incubators
Designated organizations are business groups that are approved to invest in or support possible start-ups through the Start-up Visa Program.
Organizations choose which business proposals to review. Each organization has its own intake process for proposals and criteria used to assess them. For example, you may be asked to present your business concept in person or submit a detailed business plan.

Venture capital funds
You must get at least one of these groups to agree to invest a minimum of $200,000:

  • BCF Ventures
  • BDC Venture Capital
  • Celtic House Venture Partners
  • Extreme Venture Partners LLP
  • Golden Venture Partners Fund, LP
  • Impression Ventures
  • Innovation Platform Capital International LP
  • iNovia Capital Inc.
  • Lumira Capital
  • Nova Scotia Innovation Corporation (o/a Innovacorp)
  • OMERS Ventures Management Inc.
  • Pangaea Ventures Ltd.
  • PRIVEQ Capital Funds
  • Real Ventures
  • Relay Ventures
  • ScaleUp Venture Partners, Inc.
  • Top Renergy Inc.
  • Vanedge Capital Limited Partnership
  • Version One Ventures
  • Westcap Management Ltd.
  • Yaletown Venture Partners Inc.
  • York Entrepreneurship Development Institute (YEDI) VC Fund

Angel investor groups
You must get one or more investors connected to these groups to agree to invest a minimum of $75,000:

  • Canadian International Angel Investors
  • Ekagrata Inc.
  • Golden Triangle Angel Network
  • Keiretsu Forum Canada
  • Oak Mason Investments Inc.
  • Southeastern Ontario Angel Network
  • TenX Angel Investors Inc.
  • VANTEC Angel Network Inc.
  • York Angel Investors Inc.

Business incubators
You must be accepted into one of these programs:

  • Alacrity Foundation
  • Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
  • Agrivalue Processing Business Incubator
  • Food Processing Development Centre
  • Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. (operating as Manitoba Technology Accelerator)
  • Creative Destruction Lab
  • Empowered Startups Ltd.
  • Extreme Innovations
  • Genesis Centre
  • Highline BETA Inc.
  • Innovacorp
  • Interactive Niagara Media Cluster o/a Innovate Niagara
  • Invest Ottawa
  • Knowledge Park o/a Planet Hatch
  • LatAm Startups
  • Launch Academy – Vancouver
  • LaunchPad PEI Inc.
  • Millworks Centre for Entrepreneurship
  • NEXT Canada
  • North Forge Technology Exchange
  • Platform Calgary
  • Real Investment Fund III L.P. o/a FounderFuel
  • Ryerson Futures Inc.
  • Spark Commercialization and Innovation Centre
  • Spring Activator
  • The DMZ at Ryerson University
  • Toronto Business Development Centre (TBDC)
  • TSRV Canada Inc. (operating as Techstars Canada)
  • VIATEC
  • Waterloo Accelerator Centre
  • York Entrepreneurship Development Institute

This may sound cynical, but what is to stop someone from “funnelling” money through one of these Venture Capitalists or Angels, and having them approve it, after taking a cut? There doesn’t seem to be much, if anything, in the way of screening or verification by the government.

5. After You Have Applied

Confirmation of permanent residence
If we approve your application, we’ll issue you a permanent resident visa. This visa includes your Confirmation of Permanent Residence (COPR) and your entry visa.
Your COPR will have information about who you are, as well as your photograph. Please check to make sure it’s correct. It should be the same as the information on your passport. If there’s a mistake on your COPR, contact us through your account.
You must have your COPR and your visa with you when you arrive in Canada. We won’t extend your COPR, so you should make sure to use it before it expires.

That’s right. You can at often have your confirmation of permanent residence PRIOR to ever setting foot in Canada. This is basically just buying citizenship.

And if you don’t feel like waiting around to get your permanent resident status confirmed, you can always apply for an open work permit (via the International Mobility Program), and just work in Canada in the meantime.

And again, who is going to front $75,000 or $200,000 to start up a business in Canada for a “start up”, run by someone living in another country? Does this sound at all sketchy?

6. Early Entry For “Essential” People

What is an essential person under the Start-up Visa Program?
An essential person is considered to be critical to the business and will be specifically identified as essential by the designated organization on the commitment certificate and letter of support.
If we refuse the application of an essential person, all related applicants will be refused.

To recap this: Venture Capitalists or Angels are supposedly giving large sums of money to people to build a business in Canada. However they are doing this for someone who doesn’t even live in Canada, and presumably whose existing business is outside Canada. They are committing this money without any guarantee the person will be let into the country even on a temporary basis. They are committing this money with no assurance that a business run in another country will be successful in Canada.

This appears to be a very strange way to run such an operation, unless there was some other agenda at hand.

7. No Matter If Business Fails

If I immigrate through the Start-up Visa Program, what happens if my business fails?
If your business fails, it doesn’t affect your permanent resident status. We recognize that not every business will succeed and this program is designed so that the risk is shared between the public and private sector.

The program is designed so that the risk is shared by the public and the private sector? Does this mean that taxpayers will be subsidizing your losses or bankruptcy?

8. Is This Just A Pretext?

This article from Harvard Business Review explains in broad strokes how the business works, and how one gets funding.

While it is difficult enough for people working and residing within the host nation to get outside funding, it would be much more so for outsiders. So what then is the point of this program? Giving $75,000 to $200,000 for foreigners to start a business in Canada with no guarantee they could enter the country is absurd.

However, at least from the information readily available, there don’t seem to be any safeguards or checks and balances in place. It appears to rely on the honour system.

Uppity Peasants: The Moral Argument For Closing Loophole in Safe Third Country Agreement

(Uppity Peasants website)

1. Context For The Article

This is a quote from the author of Uppity Peasants. During a recent conversation, she gave some really good reasons as to why people should not be allowed to enter Canada illegally and feast off the taxpayers. Rather than paraphrasing, here is a quote in its entirety in Part #2.

Initial challenge has been struck down. The Prothonotary has ruled that a citizen has no standing to make such a claim (either public or private standing), and that there is nothing that the Court can do. Pretty messed up to say that a citizen has no rights or say in having a secure border. The first level appeal is underway, which is an appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court, and more information will provided as it comes along.

2. Input from Uppity Peasants

Morally, I would say that the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. I would also say that if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into *our* country is doing no one any favours

I would further submit that we have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, and the recent semi-official declaration of the federal government’s treatment of indigenous Canadians as “genocide”, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce.

Go check out Uppity Peasants website. Some very interesting content indeed. This is a moral and philosophical argument against allowing illegals to keep sneaking into Canada (mainly via Roxham Road, QC).

Hard to disagree with a single word here.

3. Why Try To Close The Loophole?

Writing and talking about immigration — legal or illegal — is one thing. Anyone can say they oppose something, or oppose an injustice. Anyone can complain about their concerns.

But in the end, do you actually mean anything that you say?

Canadian Student Visas — Pathway to PR For Families

(Student visas are pathway to permanent residence in Canada)

(Work in Canada after graduation)

(Spouse/Common-Law Partner also eligible to work)

(Children of students eligible to enroll in school)

(Canada and recognition of foreign credentials)

(StatsCan looks at over-education)

(Screenshot from 2018 Report to Parliament)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for stay in Canada after graduation.
CLICK HERE, for post graduation work permit.
CLICK HERE, for work permits for spouse/common-law partner.
CLICK HERE, for working while school is in session.
CLICK HERE, for children studying in Canada, including options without any visa.
CLICK HERE, for foreign credential recognition in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for auditing the F.C.R.P.
CLICK HERE, for a Statistics Canada paper on over-education and life happiness data in Canada.

Previous Articles On Immigration
CLICK HERE, for mass/replacement migration at 1M/year in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK (Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Org).
CLICK HERE, for TD article on true scale of replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for Canada: amnesty for illegals pilot program in GTA.
CLICK HERE, for sanctuary cities circumventing borders.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in U.S., amnesty programs.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

Report Year Actual Year Numbers
2004 2003 61,293
2005 2004 56,536
2006 2005 57,476
2007 2006 61,703
2008 2007 64,636
2009 2008 79,509
2010 2009 85,140
2011 2010 96,157
2012 2011 98,383
2013 2012 104,810
2014 2013 111,865
2015 2014 127,698
2016 2015 219,143
2017 2016 265,111
2018 2017 317,328

3. Context For This Article

In our official Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration, student visas are classified as “temporary” migration into Canada. However, this is extremely misleading for at least 3 reasons:

First: There are pathways to stay in Canada after graduation, and to obtain permanent residence. These are not loopholes, but options deliberately built in.

Second: Students can work up to 20 hours per week when school is in session, and an unlimited amount of time in other weeks. These are in fact WORK permits as well, and it forces Canadians to compete against students for other jobs.

Third: There are options to bring family members along, which the public at large doesn’t know. Spouses, for example, can obtain work permits simply for being married to a student visa holder. Also, children of student visa holders get access to primary and secondary schooling in Canada — even without a visa. This counts for the children as “time in Canada”, and towards credit for extending the stay further.

4. Work Permits For Spose Of Student

Who can get a work permit as the spouse or common-law partner of a student?
Your spouse or common-law partner may be eligible for an open work permit if you:
-have a valid study permit and
-are a full-time student at one of these types of schools:
-a public post-secondary school, such as a college or university, or CEGEP in Quebec
-a private college-level school in Quebec
-a Canadian private school that can legally award degrees under provincial law (for example, Bachelors, Masters or Doctorate degree)

The student visa program is designed to provide open work permits for the spouse or Common-Law Partner of a student visa holder to work freely for any employer while the other is in school. Of course, this counts towards the time needed to be in Canada to transition into other statuses, say permanent resident.

5. Student’s Children Can Study, No Visa

Minor children before entering Canada
Minor children who want to study for six months or more must apply for a study permit before they enter Canada. This includes minor children who come with parents who had a study or work permit approved overseas.
You do not need a study permit for a program of six months or less, but you may still apply for one before entering Canada.
If you are coming to Canada with parents who have a valid study or work permit, you don’t need to provide a letter of acceptance from a school when you apply for a study permit.

Minor children already in Canada
Minors already in Canada should apply for a study permit. In some provinces or territories, they may need one to receive social services.
Minor children who are already in Canada may study without a study permit if they:
-are in kindergarten, no matter what their parents’ status is in Canada
-want to go to pre-school, primary or secondary school and have a parent who is allowed to work or study in Canada
-are refugees or refugee claimants
-have parents who are refugees or refugee claimants
-came to Canada as a visitor for a course or program of studies of six months or less
-will study in a course or program of six months or less
-are in Canada by themselves

This may be poor wording from the site, but why would the children already be in the country if the parents are not? Is the incentive here to enter Canada with the children and only then get them into school?

Nonetheless, if the children of a student are in Canada, they are eligible to be enrolled — for free — in primary or secondary school in Canada.

6. Work While In School

How many hours can you work off-campus?
-You can only start working in Canada when you start your study program. You can’t work before your studies begin.
During regular school semesters:
-you can work up to 20 hours
During scheduled breaks in your school year, like during winter and summer holidays:
-you can work full-time
-you can’t work during a break that comes before you start your very first school semester
-If your program doesn’t have scheduled academic breaks, you can’t work more than 20 hours per week.

While school is going on, a student visa holder can work up to 20 hours/week, for any employer. One caveat, you cannot work for multiple employers if the combined total is over 20 hours/week. At other times, there is no limit to the number of hours available.

And again, Canadians are forced to compete against what is essentially a pool of temporary work visas.

7. Post Graduate Work Permit

If your program was more than 8 months but less than 2 years
We may give you a PGWP that’s valid for up to the same length as your study program.
For example, if you completed a 9-month program, we may give you a work permit for up to 9 months.

If your program was 2 years or more
We may give you a PGWP that’s valid for 3 years.

If you completed more than 1 program
You may be able to get a PGWP that combines the length of each program.
Each of the programs you completed must be
-PGWP-eligible and
-at least 8 months in length
You can’t get a PGWP if you already had one after completing an earlier program of study.

In reality, most graduates are getting a work permit after finishing school through the Post Graduate Work Program. It may be up to 3 years, sometimes longer. Why? What is the goal?

The final objective for many is clear. Permanent residence, and then citizenship. Student visas (while “temporary” on paper, are in fact stepping stones to remaining in Canada.

8. Transition Into Permanent Residents

Find your path to permanent residence
You’ve studied in Canada and maybe you even have Canadian work experience. Now, you’d like to live here permanently. We have options for you to become a permanent resident!
The Come to Canada tool can help you explore your options. You can also use the cheat sheet below to compare programs. Visit the program’s eligibility page to get all the details.

This page is too long to quote, but do go through it. Point is, that “temporary” visas like student visas are in fact stepping stones (pathways) to becoming a permanent resident.

As for your spouse and children (if any) in Parts #4 and #5, guess what? That time spent in Canada will also count towards the necessary time in Canada. And if the original student visa holder becomes a permanent resident, it will be easier to sponsor them as well.

9. How Many Students Are We Admitting?

Check the data table in Part #2. All of that comes directly from the Annual Reports to Parliament in Canada. Clearly, the numbers have been trending upwards for many years, and there is no sign of that slowing down. It has gone even higher since, with total college and university enrollment consisting of about 40% international students.

Why the surge? 3 reasons. First, colleges and universities are money pits, and require an almost endless supply of money to keep going. God forbid they downsize. Second, Canadians are more and more opting opt of the post secondary life, given high debt and poor job prospects. That shortfall has to be made up elsewhere, or else cuts will need to be made. Third, as outlined before, student visas are a direct pathway to permanent residence, something more and more people are taking advantage of.

Also, keep in mind that children of students are allowed to come to primary and secondary school without a student visa in many cases. Although the majority of student visa holders are childless, this does skew the data.

The result is that Canada is importing a replacement population under the guise of higher education. Citizenship for tuition dollars, that’s what it comes down to.

10. Overeducation, Poor Job Prospects

Over-education is typically defined as employment in an occupation that is below an individual’s skills or work experience (Chen, Smith and Mustard 2010). Subjective measures based on respondents’ self-perceived over-education are also used in the literature (Feldman and Turnley 1995). Although there are multiple operational definitions (Friedland and Price 2003), the most commonly used measure identifies the occurrence of over-education as when an individual’s educational attainment is higher than the level of education “required to adequately perform” his or her job (Rubb 2003; Wolbers 2003, p. 250). This study also employs this definition of over-education, focusing specifically on the match between an individual’s educational attainment and the educational requirements of the occupation.

Generally, individuals who are over-educated are not able to obtain employment that fully capitalizes on their level of education, in terms of either financial rewards or skill utilization (Bracke, van de Straat and Missinne 2014; Feldman 1996). The consequences of over-education have been examined extensively. Much of the literature focuses on either the economic costs of over-education or how over-education affects job quality. These studies indicate that over-education results in lower earnings, lower productivity, more precarious working conditions, less autonomy on the job, and unused human capital (e.g., Chiswick and Miller 2009; Fleming and Kler 2008; Hartog 2000; Nordin, Persson and Rooth 2010; Peter, Gässler and Geyer 2007; Piper 2015; Smith and Frank 2005; Wu, Luksyte and Parker 2015). However, there are also psychological costs that may be linked, at least in part, to these consequences of over-education.

One limitation of these studies is that they are concentrated on recent immigrants, who tend to experience a range of challenges when transitioning into a new culture and labour market. While some hypothesize that a continued mismatch between immigrants’ education and employment likely increases their feelings of dissatisfaction (Chen, Smith and Mustard 2010), there is no evidence that this is the case. In fact, George et al. (2012) found that immigrant engineers who were not employed in their field and had been living in Canada for six or more years had higher life satisfaction than their more recently arrived counterparts.

That study is a very interesting one, and those are just a few quotes from it.

However, researchers omit a very real piece of information from the equation. Depending on where a person comes from, merely moving to Canada would be seen as a victory with the much higher standard of living. One could reasonably believe that immigrating itself was the real goal, with occupational achievement a very distant second. That is missing from the report though.

This is not to say that there is anything inherently bad with moving to another country. But we should be honest about what is really driving these changes. It is overall quality of life.

As anyone who has been paying attention over the last decade knows, the market is extremely glutted for new graduates. Why then would people come all the way over here to compete with Canadians? Answer: immigrating itself is the real goal. Many don’t care what field they end up in.

The CBC article is just one example of media making it abundantly clear that job prospects for young people and new graduates is very harsh. Importing large numbers of students who intend to remain in Canada only makes their difficulties worse.

11. Foreign Credential Recognition Prog

1. Overview
The Government of Canada provides funding to governments and organizations through the Foreign Credential Recognition Program (FCRP) to support foreign credential recognition in Canada.

The Framework sets out a commitment to provide internationally trained individuals in target occupations with timely credential recognition service. This means these individuals will know within one year whether their qualifications, including their credentials, meet Canadian requirements, what other requirements they may need and which other occupations match their skills and experience. Governments are putting supports and processes in place to meet this service standard.

This service commitment is already being met in these target occupations:

  • architect
  • dentist
  • engineering technician
  • engineer
  • financial auditor and accountant
  • licensed practical nurse
  • medical laboratory technologist
  • medical radiation technologist
  • occupational therapist
  • pharmacist
  • physiotherapist
  • registered nurse
  • physician
  • teacher (K–12)

This service commitment will soon be met in these target occupations:

  • audiologist and speech language pathologist
  • carpenter
  • electrician (industrial and construction)
  • geoscientist
  • heavy duty equipment technician
  • heavy equipment operator
  • lawyer
  • midwife
  • psychologist
  • welder

Any of these fields look familiar? They are ones that Canadian graduates struggle to find work in. This is because the markets are already saturated.

Note also: true, these programs exist in Canadian schools, but the places available are very limited. This means that there ARE Canadians who want to get into these fields, but that only limited spaces exist.

The Canadian Government (really the taxpayers) help to fund this Foreign Credential Recognition Program. This means that taxpayers are financing efforts to bring more foreign workers in, while our own people struggle to find meaningful work.

One obvious benefit to this high supply of labour: it helps to keep wages low. The supply — in many fields — far outweighs the demands.

Of course, there is another angle to look at: The FCRP staff can claim that the foreign credentials don’t quite meet the standard, and that more schooling is needed. Hence, the workers will be forced to help finance the post-secondary education beast.

12. Auditing The F.C.R.P.

The audit findings indicate a high level of compliance with respect to educational and professional qualification requirements. The audit confirmed that all credentials claimed by appointees in 269 appointments were valid and issued by legitimate institutions. However, there were 9 appointments (out of the total sample of 278 appointments) where the audit team did not have enough information to complete validation, for reasons outlined in this report.

While the authenticity of the credentials claimed by appointees was largely confirmed, the audit did reveal a lack of understanding of the requirement for appointees to provide proof of Canadian equivalency for foreign credentials. Qualification standards, established by the Treasury Board of Canada, stipulate that candidates with foreign credentials must have those credentials assessed against Canadian educational standards and found to be comparable. Sub-delegated managers did not follow through on this requirement in 12 of the 24 appointments (50%) where it applied. This observation leads to the single recommendation stemming from the audit.

For the auditing done in 2019, 278 appointments were audited for documentation, and 24 were audited for equivalency to Canadian education.

These are very small audit numbers, given the size and scale of the program. But half (50%) were not equivalent enough to Canadian standards.

As for the missing documentation, is it that paperwork has gone missing, or was there fraud? Would be interesting to know.

13. Where Do Things Stand?

Let’s consider the facts:

(a) Canada is admitting a huge population of foreign students, which now make up almost half of college and university students. Schools need these foreign students to make up the difference as domestic enrollment is decreasing. The numbers for international students have been consistently trending upwards.

(b) Students can work, even while in school. This leads to an artificial bump in the amount of workers available, and helps to hamstring Canadians who are looking for work, or for more hours. They have new competition to face.

(c) These students, once they graduate, will have pathways to obtain permanent resident status. This also applies to a spouse or children, who are able to come to Canada as well. This is not “temporary” migration as people claim, and absolutely should be disclosed publicly.

(d) Many professions are completely glutted with graduates and other young people. This has led to an underemployment epidemic Canada, where people are getting little to no use out of their education. As such, it become an employer’s market in many fields, and it allows wages to remain stagnant, even as inflation continues.

(e) Our own government uses taxpayer money to finance the recognition of foreign credentials. This happens even as Canadian programs are capped and enrollment limited. This means that the rules are intentionally rigged to favour foreigners.

How does any of this help Canadians? How does importing subsidized foreign competition, while capping domestic enrollment make job hunting easier for Canadians? It doesn’t. All it does it help ensure a large supply of labour available to work for less.

To be fair, it does also help replace the population. But that has been addressed elsewhere.

Canada: Pathway To Permanent Residence For Illegals & Their Families

(Program launched in July: PR-Path for illegals)

(Canadian Labour Congress)

(Canadian Border Services cancelling arrest warrants)

(Nothing new here. Temps becoming permanent residents is old news, and there are many ways to do this.

(Screenshots from 2018 Report to Parliament)

(How the CPC might address this issue)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t website on pathway to permanent resident status for illegal aliens.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Labour Congress.

Previous Articles On Immigration
CLICK HERE, for mass/replacement migration at 1M/year in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK review.
CLICK HERE, for TD article on true scale of replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for sanctuary cities circumventing borders.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in U.S., amnesty programs.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

Each annual report talks about how many “temporary” workers and students come into Canada every year. But how many of them actually leave, and how many simply stay, legally or otherwise?

3. Some Context For This Review

Defenders of mass migration into Canada always defend so-called “temporary” entry into the country. These programs include:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program
(b) International Mobility Program
(c) Student Visas

The main difference (on paper) between TFWP and IMP is that TFWP requires a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), which is a demonstration that a job exists that a Canadian cannot fulfill. By contrast, the International Mobility Program is effectively an open work permit.

While student visas are supposed to be for school, students are allowed to work up to 20 hours per week when class is in session. They are allowed unlimited hours other periods. Student visas are essentially work permits as well.

Despite what critics claim, not everyone returns home after their allotted time in Canada. Some do, certainly, but a lot don’t. Why? Because Canada’s laws make it very easy to obtain permanent residence, or to otherwise extend your stay. And not only can the main applicant stay, but family (typically spouse and children) are often included in this.

Certainly there are other programs than the 3 listed above, but they are 3 of the largest, and important to note.

4. Pathway To Permanent Residence

Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

And if this “temporary” initiative is deemed to be successful, then how much will it be extended by? Guaranteed it is not 500 people.

Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

Over many years and decades? So the government admits that people have been overstaying visas or work permits for decades. Why hasn’t this been addressed long ago.

Illegals living in Canada leads to depressed wages? I would actually agree, but up to a point. Yes, the extra labour available does drive down wages. However, that would still be the case even if they were “legalized”. It would still be an abundance of cheap labour.

The Temporary Public Policy for Out-of-Status Construction Workers in the Greater Toronto Area responds to the recent parliamentary report on labour shortages in the construction industry in this part of Canada and reflects observations from numerous studies about the vulnerability of out-of-status workers. In the committee’s recommendations, the Government was urged to explore solutions for workers in the construction industry with precarious or no immigration status.

This temporary initiative is a step forward to increase the protection of some of these construction workers and their families, while safeguarding Canada’s labour market and ensuring that Canada can retain the workers it needs to grow the economy and build communities.

Potential applicants will first identify themselves to the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), a national labour organization with many construction industry affiliates in the GTA. CLC officials will determine the eligibility of potential applicants and refer them to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Source is here. That is exactly as it sounds. People living in the country illegally can sign up for this program, and if accepted, will be on a pathway to permanent residence.

Not that we don’t have large numbers of Canadians who are either unemployed or underemployed. Never mind that Canadians are forced to compete for jobs with people in the country illegally, who are often willing to work less. Never mind the effect of driving down wages.

Ignore the money that gets sent out of the country as remittances, money that should be staying and helping to drive Canada’s economy.

Does anyone truly believe this is a “temporary” program, or that it is going to remain at just a few hundred people? No, once it’s considered “operational”, the next step will be to scale it up.

5. PR Program For Families

Spouses/partners and dependent children can be included in the application for permanent residence.

This detail cannot be left out. This so-called temporary initiative is not just for the worker without legal status. Spouse and children are also eligible to apply under it.

6. Canadian Labour Congress

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is proud to be working with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to implement a temporary initiative that will help 500 out-of-status construction workers find a pathway to permanent residence that will end the insecure nature of their employment and immigration status.

Out-of-status workers are people who have come to Canada with valid temporary residence status, but have fallen out of status for various reasons, and have found employment in the construction industry. Without status, these workers have continued to fill labour shortages, while contributing greatly to our society and economy. However, fear of detection, detainment, and deportation drives these workers and their families “underground,” often limiting their access to social programs, and making them vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

The Canadian Labour Congress openly admits that people are working without being legally allowed in (or to remain) in Canada. But who cares, we need the workers.

The purpose of this initiative is to put in place a mechanism for the Government of Canada and the CLC, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual interest, to work together in the identification and referral for processing of applications for permanent residence in Canada of up to 500 out-of-status construction workers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and their immediate family members (e.g., spouse or common-law partner, and dependent children).

Up to 100 of the 500 spaces for this public policy will be permitted for those who entered Canada as a temporary resident, but who never had authorization to work in Canada.

For some clarification, it is not 500 people INCLUDING family members. Rather, it is 500 people plus their family members.

Nice bait-and-switch here. The program is announced as a means to help WORKERS who have fallen on hard times. However, the CLC admits it will be partially open for people who were never even workers.

Also, this may be poor wording, but is immediate family limited to a spouse and children, or are those just the guidelines?

7. U.S. A Cautionary Warning

Both sanctuary cities and the estimated 22 million or more illegals have been covered here. The U.S. has had many amnesty initiatives, but since the borders are not secure, this doesn’t help the problem. It only encourages much more of it.

Problem is, since Canada doesn’t track people leaving the country (until very recently), we have no way of knowing who has left, and when.

Informal estimates are of 200,000 to 500,000 people living in the Canada, small compared to 22M or more in the United States. However, getting actual substance behind those estimates is difficult. And if this “pilot program” is considered successful, how large will it be expanded to?

8. CBSA “Cancelling” Arrest Warrants

While a separate topic, this is interesting to consider as well. Recently the Canadian Border Services Agency admitted it “cancels” arrest warrants for people it is supposed to deport, but cannot find. The article is mind-blowingly stupid beyond belief.

According to Lemire, the CBSA cancelled more than 1,300 immigration warrants in 2018. It’s unclear how many of these cancelled warrants were for people who could still be in Canada but were not found by the CBSA.

A cynic might wonder whether this is politically motivated, or whether the Border Services wants to appear less incompetent by having less “open warrants” on its books. Either way, it’s disgraceful, and undermines Canadian sovereignty.

9. Forget Deportation, Just Put Them To Work

That seems to be where we are heading. No more “divisive” deportations. Just put them to work, and hand out their new papers. Don’t worry about any of the long term costs.

As has been covered ad nauseum here, LEGAL immigration into Canada is currently at about 1 million per year. That includes people who have entered on some kind of visa, and have a pathway to permanent residence.

This program will not stop at 500 workers and their families. It will be expanded once the structure is in place. It cheapens Canadian citizenship when access to it is so easy.