(U.S.) HR 61: Bill To Expand Scope Of Hate Crimes Introduced

Remember the mass shooting in Buffalo last year that was supposedly based on the “replacement theory”? It had been predicted that this would lead to more calls for gun control, and it did.

But the other shoe has dropped. House Resolution 61 has been introduced to expand hate crime laws within the U.S., and to specifically target a certain type of crime. It was sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas.

What’s particularly alarming is how many of the terms in this Bill are not clearly defined. (See archive.) This makes it difficult to enforce, but enables it to be selectively applied. In a practical sense: it has the potential to make debate much trickier, and easier to shut down.

Yes, this is in the United States, but something similar could easily come to Canada in the not too distant future. Don’t dismiss the possibility.

To state the obvious: this is only focused on one group of people.

A BILL
To prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate
crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy in-
spired hate crime and to amend title 18, United States
Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Leading Against White
5 Supremacy Act of 2023’’.
6 SEC. 2. WHITE SUPREMACY INSPIRED HATE CRIME.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—A person engages in a white su-
8 premacy inspired hate crime when white supremacy
ide

2
1 ology has motivated the planning, development, prepara-
2 tion, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime
3 or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effec-
4 tuated, would have constituted a crime.
5 (b) CONSPIRACY.—A conspiracy to engage in white
6 supremacy inspired hate crime shall be determined to
7 exist—

8 (1) between two or more persons engaged in the
9 planning, development, preparation, or perpetration
10 of a white supremacy inspired hate crime
; or
11 (2) between two or more persons—
12 (A) at least one of whom engaged in the
13 planning, development, preparation, or per-
14 petration of a white supremacy inspired hate
15 crime;
and
16 (B) at least one of whom published mate-
17 rial advancing white supremacy, white suprema-
18 cist ideology, antagonism based on ‘‘replace-
19 ment theory’’
, or hate speech that vilifies or is
20 otherwise directed against any non-White per-
21 son or group, and such published material—
22 (i) was published on a social media
23 platform or by other means of publication
24 with the likelihood that it would be viewed
25 by persons who are predisposed to engag-

3
•HR 61 IH
1 ing in any action in furtherance of a white
2 supremacy inspired hate crime, or who are
3 susceptible to being encouraged to engage
4 in actions in furtherance of a white su-
5 premacy inspired hate crime;
6 (ii) could, as determined by a reason-
7 able person, motivate actions by a person
8 predisposed to engaging in a white suprem-
9 acy inspired hate crime or by a person who
10 is susceptible to being encouraged to en-
11 gage in actions relating to a white suprem-
12 acy inspired hate crime
; and
13 (iii) was read, heard, or viewed by a
14 person who engaged in the planning, devel-
15 opment, preparation, or perpetration of a
16 white supremacy inspired hate crime.
17 (c) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY, EN-
18 FORCEMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING.—The De-
19 partment shall have authority to conduct operations and
20 activities pursuant to this section, specifically—
21 (1) with regard to information or evidence ob-
22 tained by the Department of any action cited in this
23 section, the Department shall have the authority to
24 investigate, intercede, and undertake other actions
25 that it deems necessary and appropriate to interdict,

4
•HR 61 IH
1 mitigate, or prevent such action from culminating in
2 violent activity;
3 (2) the Department shall have the authority to
4 prosecute persons who engaged in actions cited in
5 this section
; and
6 (3) the Uniform Crime Reporting Program in
7 the Department of Justice shall maintain records of
8 white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related
9 actions cited in this section
, and enforcement actions
10 in response thereto.
11 The Department shall provide annual reports to the ap-
12 propriate committees in Congress that shall include infor-
13 mation cited in this paragraph.
14 SEC. 3. CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
15 Section 249(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
16 amended—
17 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
18 by inserting after ‘‘race, color, religion, or national
19 origin of any person’’ the following: ‘‘, or because of
20 a white supremacy based motivation against any
21 person’’
; and
22 (2) in subparagraph (B)—
23 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the
24 end;

5
•HR 61 IH
1 (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period
2 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
3 (C) by adding at the end the following:
4 ‘‘(iii) the offense was in furtherance of
5 a white supremacy based motivation.’’.
6 SEC. 4. FINDINGS.
7 Section 4702 of the Matthew Shepard and James
8 Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 249
9 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
10 ‘‘(11) Mass shootings and other hate crimes
11 motivated by white supremacy
have been increasing
12 in frequency and intensity. These heinous and viru-
13 lent crimes are inspired by conspiracy theories, bla-
14 tant bigotry, and mythical falsehoods such as ‘‘re-
15 placement theory’’
. All instances must be prevented
16 and severe criminal penalties must be applied to
17 their perpetrators.’’.

There is a section in HR 61 that states: Department of Justice shall maintain records of white supremacy inspired hate crimes and related actions cited in this section. Does this mean that groups that talk about the ongoing replacement in the West will be looked at? (As if they aren’t already).

Also, will law enforcement to more than simply monitor and keep records? Will there be active involvement in setting up undercover operations or honeypots?

The Bill also talks about postings on the internet which people who are “susceptible to being encouraged” might read or view the content. This is another slippery slope. It seems designed to force authors to water down whatever they say because of what some random person “might” say or do.

Census data — Government distributed — in countries across the West have shown considerable demographic changes (or replacement, depending on your slant) over the last 60 or so years. Was it racist to have generated this information in the first place? Is it racist to openly and honestly discuss what is happening?

Moreover, the mainstream media has addressed this topic many times in the last few decades. It’s openly predicted that most countries in the West will be majority non-white by the end of this century, if not sooner. This is hardly a secret.

Hate crimes are already illegal in the U.S. So, why is this specific Bill necessary?

To play devil’s advocate here: this could simply be about grandstanding. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician put forth legislation they never planned to advance in order to score points. Then again, it may not be the case.

The vague and undefined definitions and explanations are possibly the worst part, as there are no actual standards to be applied.

(1) https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr61/BILLS-118hr61ih.pdf
(2) BILLS 118 House Resolution 61
(3) https://www.congress.gov/member/sheila-jackson-lee/J000032
(4) https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory
(5) https://www.businessinsider.com/buffalo-mass-shooting-latest-linked-to-great-replacement-theory-2022-5?op=1

Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice

It’s the most harmless sounding names that are most chilling.

The Government of Canada has announced a new agreement with the United States and Mexico: The Declaration on the North American Partnership for Equity and Racial Justice. Mélanie Joly, Foreign Affairs Minister, also tweeted about it.

While this sounds fine enough, the vague wording of much of the text is cause for concern.

Considering the lengths that these countries have gone in establishing equal rights, it seems unproductive to keep pushing the narrative that there’s all these hate groups and institutions. It comes across as having the effect of making peaceful co-existence impossible, and maybe that’s the point.

It’s unclear what exactly “racial justice” would involve. If it were simply equal rights, then it would be very different to oppose. But would it be reparations? This idea has been floated in recent years. Perhaps it involves affirmative action or quotas in various institutions.

To address the obvious: this document doesn’t advocate for “equality”. That would be equal rights and opportunities between people. That would be fine. Instead, it calls for “equity”, which is equality of outcome, and sounds pretty much like Communism.

There’s a bit of a bait-and-switch here as the document calls on partners to: “root out the barriers to equal opportunity”. However, they are pushing equity (equality of outcome), while attempting to persuade others that it’s about equal opportunity.

Declaration between the Government of the United Mexican States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the United States of America.

Across our three nations, generations of leaders have fought to build democracies where people from richly diverse histories and cultures share the equal promise of freedom and inclusion. Our diversity is North America’s greatest strength, as it boosts innovation, leads to economic growth, enriches our democracies, and advances our security.

Yet in spite of our progress, many across North America continue to face intersecting forms of systemic racism, discrimination and hate because of who they are, whom they love, the language they speak, their nation of origin, the color of their skin, and their religion or beliefs. Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, religion, belief, language, and socio-economic status persist throughout our region and in each of our countries. Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples, who have lived in North America since time immemorial, continue to face unacceptable disparities and barriers, as do other communities with lived experience of discrimination and racism. Systemic racism, expressions of white supremacy and discrimination in all forms diminish our economic growth, limit our prosperity, undermine national and regional security, and threaten the durability of our democracies. To unleash North America’s full and vast potential, we must comprehensively address these barriers and challenges.

Building on efforts in our respective countries to advance equity and racial justice, at the 2021 North American Leaders’ Summit President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. declared their commitment to building just, inclusive, and equitable democracies that combat systemic racism and discrimination in all forms. Following that declaration, we committed to working together to create a North America in which every individual has an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential and equal participation in social, cultural, economic, and political life.

We now establish this North American Partnership as a reflection of our common commitments to advancing equity and racial justice within our countries, and our intent to work collaboratively to address systemic forms of discrimination and honor the diverse tapestry of histories, customs, cultures, languages, identities, ethnicities, abilities, and beliefs that make North America strong.

In recognition of our close ties and shared vision, the Participants in this Partnership will:

(1) Work within our own countries to affirmatively advance equity and racial justice, and to comprehensively root out the barriers to equal opportunity that marginalized communities continue to face.

(2) Establish a Trilateral Racial Equity and Inclusion Expert Network to facilitate the exchange of information to share best practices and innovative strategies developed across our three countries for advancing equity and racial justice in our public policies and societies, and to help identify further action areas for the Partnership. In establishing this expert exchange, we will seek opportunities to engage communities with lived experience of racism and discrimination on driving solutions to protect the rights of members of marginalized communities; advance health equity and economic inclusion; address racial and other disparities in the justice system, access to the ballot, and educational opportunities; and reflect the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce.

(3) Collaborate together to advance equity and racial justice through our participation in regional and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations and other fora. This includes advancing the rights and aspirations enshrined in multilateral commitments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Decade for People of African Descent, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and other joint undertakings.

Discrimination against people “for who they love”, is presumably referring to adults of the same sex. However, it wouldn’t take much to expand that to include pedophilia, as the language is very vague. As for gender identity, many would agree that this has been forced on the public far too much already.

“Reflect[ing] the diversity of our nations in our federal public services workforce” is code for hiring quotas. Most people can agree that a merit-based civil service is the best way to have it. Social engineering shouldn’t push that principle aside

As for “address racial and other disparities in the justice system”, does this mean something like Gladue Rights across the continent? This would be race-based discounts in criminal court, due to overrepresentation of certain groups.

This agreement also endorses the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda (Agenda 2030), and connects equity and racial justice to that.

The claim that certain groups “face unacceptable disparities and barriers” is telling, even if hard to understand. Disparities simply refers to differences in overall outcomes. This can be for many reasons, and is not necessarily discrimination. But it goes on imply that these differences are the direct result of some barriers that are put in place. This follows the assumption that groups of people would essentially be the same if others wouldn’t oppress them in some way.

An obvious example is the long debunked wage gap. Just because men and woman — on average — make different personal and lifestyle choices, doesn’t mean discrimination took place.

While the text sounds well meaning enough, domestic implementation of such ideals would invite even more Government overreach and interference.

And a logistical question: what would happen to people who decide that they want nothing to do with such a system? What punishments would they face?

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/federal-anti-racism-secretariat/declaration-partnership-equality-racial-justice.html
(2) https://twitter.com/melaniejoly/status/1612801847076749314
(3) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice/
(4) https://www.state.gov/declaration-on-the-north-american-partnership-for-equity-and-racial-justice-2/

Review Of 2022 Annual Immigration Report To Parliament

With the end of this so-called “pandemic” in Canada, expect the agenda to move ahead. There were increases in every category in 2021 (compared to 2020). Expect this to get worse.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2021.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2022.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

The information in this article, and similar ones, comes directly from information provided by the Government of Canada in their annual reports. These numbers, while likely not truly accurate, are at least a good starting point.

3. Immigration Largely Controlled By Provinces

Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc.
.
95 In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.

Contrary to popular belief, immigration is largely set by the Provinces. This is laid out in Section 95 of the Constitution. While Ottawa may impose laws from time to time, the understanding seems to be that the Premiers will be mostly the decision makers. While it’s understandable to get angry at Trudeau, he’s far from the only deserving target.

Additionally, there are talks underway to launch a Municipal Nominee Program, which will allow cities to directly bring people in, and to sponsor their bids to become permanent residents. It’s unclear at this point how large it will ultimately be.

4. Key Highlights From The Year 2021

AS stated before, it’s not entirely clear how many people are staying after some kind of temporary visa, v.s. how many leave. We also don’t have hard data on the “inadmissibles” who don’t leave, and on the visitors who overstay. Consequently, take this as a rough estimate:

405,999 new permanent residents
-191,338 temps transitioning to PR
= 214,661 new permanent residents brought into Canada

Temporaries Brought Into Canada
445,776 (Student Visas Issued)
+103,552 (Temporary Foreign Worker Program)
+313,294 (International Mobility Program)
= 862,622 (in the temporary classes)

6,687 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 24(1) of IRPA
95 “inadmissibles” allowed under Rule 25.2(1) of IRPA

813,306 eTAs (electronic travel authorizations)
+654,027 TRV (temporary resident visas)
1,467,333 combined eTAs and TRV

221,919 permanent residents became citizens in 2021. That’s interesting, considering it’s far lower than the number of people who got their PR. Perhaps the population of Canada is much larger than we think, with a huge number who remain as PR, and don’t officially become citizens.

How many people remained in Canada? Who knows?

Other immigration (PR pathway) plans to take note of:

  • 2 pathways for Hong Kong residents (June 1, 2021 to August 31, 2026)
  • PR for TRP holders and their families (May 6, 2021 to November 5, 2021)
  • Families of air crashes PS 752 and EA302 can get PR
  • 500 people (+families) amnesty for illegals to work in construction
  • “Refugees” willing to work in health care settings can get PR

The Government brags about expediting work permits for “essential workers”, even as Canada experienced record high unemployment. They even created a program for “refugees” to get accelerated permanent residence if they work in health care settings. This comes at a time when Canadian workers are being let go for refusing the experimental shots.

Foreign students (under a rule change) became exempt from the 20 hour/week work limit that their visas typically imposed. Supposedly, this was to enable them to provide essential services. Again, this seems screwed up given how many Canadians were forced out of work.

Foreign students also received emergency benefits designed for Canadians, although the full extent of this is not yet published.

In January 2020, the G.T.A./IIRC started their program to give out permanent residencies to 500 people — and their families — who had overstayed their initial visas. This could be interpreted as an amnesty-for-illegals program, and we’ll have to see how much it expands.

IIRC also extended the Interim Federal Health Program, or IFHP, which is a plan that also covers so-called asylum claimants. This applies also to people who’ve illegally entered from the United States. Some 14% of claimants in 2020 had entered the country illegally, primarily via Roxham Road.

There’s also an initiative underway to bring in large numbers of people from Hong Kong, who claim to be fleeing persecution. Interesting, as Canada doesn’t seem to be run much better these days.

The Rainbow Refugee Assistance Program is supposed to grow. This is to resettle people alleging they are persecuted because of their questionable behaviours.

Canada also will allow people (women primarily) fleeing domestic violence to get a temporary permit, with a the possibility of becoming a permanent resident. There isn’t any information given about whether the abuser will be deported.

New initiatives have been announced to fast-track Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians into Canada. Expect details (and numbers) in the next annual report.

There is, of course, the usual GBA+ nonsense in the document.

5. Continued Population Replacement

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2021 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 50 of the 2022 Annual Report to Parliament)

Ever get the sense that people are European descent are being replaced? It’s no coincidence. The plan for decades has been to bring in large numbers of people from the 3rd World (mostly Asia and Africa), to remake society.

As usual, the top 3 are: (a) India; (b) China; and (c) The Philippines. No surprise that the enclaves in Canada are growing. More data from the recent census will be released later this year, and the results shouldn’t be a shock to anyone. India itself comprises nearly 1/3 of the total.

And keep in mind, these are just official statistics for Permanent Residents. This is by no means everyone who is coming into the country.

6. Temporary Visitors To Canada

TRV = Temporary Resident Visa
eTA = Electronic Travel Authorization

YEAR TRV Issued eTA Issued Totals
2016 1,347,898 2,605,077 3,952,975
2017 1,617,222 4,109,918 5,570,197
2018 1,898,324 4,125,909 6,024,233
2019 1,696,871 4,077,471 5,774,342
2020 257,330 648,789 906,119
2021 654,027 813,306 1,467,333

813,306 eTAs (electronic Travel Authorizations)
654,027 TRV (Temporary Resident Visa)

Travelers entering Canada increased by 62%, compared to 2020, according to the Government’s data. Expect the numbers in 2022 to come pretty close to 2018/2019 levels.

7. More “Inadmissibles” Let Into Canada

Broadly speaking, there are two provisions within IRPA, the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act, that allow people who were previously deemed inadmissible to Canada to be given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. Here are the totals from the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. Note: the first one listed only started in 2010.

Those allowed in under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA

YEAR TRP Issued Cumulative
2010 17 17
2011 53 70
2012 53 123
2013 280 403
2014 385 788
2015 1,063 1,851
2016 596 2,447
2017 555 3002
2018 669 3,671
2019 527 4,198
2020 115 4,313
2021 95 4,408

From 2010 to 2021, a total of 4,408 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway under Rule 25.1(2) of IRPA. This is the category that Global News previously reported on. As for the other one, under Rule 24(1) of IRPA, Global News leaves that out:

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787
2018 7,132 205,919
2019 6,080 211,999
2020 2,044 214,043
2021 6,687 220,730

From 2002 to 2020 (inclusive), a total of 220,730 people previously deemed inadmissible to Canada were given Temporary Resident Permits anyway. This has almost certainly been going on for a lot longer, but is as far back as the reports go. Now let’s consider the reasons these people are initially refused entry.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121
2018 7,132 5 3 4,132 559 2,299 131
2019 6,080 2 0 3,202 546 2,139 175
2020 2,044 2 1 666 131 1,000 37
2021 6,687 1 2 602 134 1,552 48

In 2021, there 6,687 people barred were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of IRPA. That is triple what it was in 2020. Nevertheless, none of these people should be coming in.

Interestingly, even though the Government has wide discretion to let people into the country under 24(1) and 25.1(2) of IRPA, it chose not to use its discretion to prohibit anyone from entering.

Even if people are excluded from Canada — for a variety of valid reasons — often they will still be given temporary entrance into Canada. Will they ever leave? Who knows?

8. Students & Temporary Workers

After a steep decline in 2020, the number of student visas being issued has shot back up in 2021. Expect this to get worse in the coming years.

As for the “temporary” workers, the image here seems to imply that these are the total numbers of people with permits. However, it elsewhere states that these are the number issued in 2021. Of course, the International Mobility Visas (a.k.a. “working holiday”) are only 1-2 years in length.

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

2019 402,427 98,310 306,797 807,534

2020 256,740 84,609 242,130 583,452

2021 445,776 103,552 313,294 862,622

Stu = Student Visa
TFWP = Temporary Foreign Worker Program
IMP = International Mobility Program

Even during a “global pandemic” there were still 862,452 international student and temporary worker visas issued. This does represent an increase of about 48% from the 583,452 that came in 2020. Still, this is a staggering large number. As long as they were willing to take the shots, it seems anyone is welcome.

There are, of course, a number of pathways to remain in Canada longer and/or transition in permanent residence. Let’s not pretend that they’re all leaving afterwards. In fact, recent changes have allowed students to remain in their home countries while collecting time towards a PR designation here.

It would be nice to have more of a breakdown on the number of people who use more than 1 type of visa, but it doesn’t seem to be included here.

9. Refugee And Asylum Programs In Canada

The report claims to have resettled some 20,428 refugees in 2021. There isn’t a full breakdown. As far as the top 5 source countries, they are listed as:

(a) Afghanistan (6,105)
(b) Syria (4,195)
(c) Eritrea (3,674)
(d) Iraq (1,520)
(e) Democratic Republic of Somalia (1,297)

Expect far more Afghans, Ukranians and Iranians in the next few years.

10. “Anti-Racism” Initiatives To Be Advanced In Canada

The agenda endorsed by the Federal Government is to be implemented into immigration policy as well. It’s quite openly anti-white, and gaslights objections as racism and oppressions.

  • That racism against Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups has persisted over time; it exists to support, reinforce and build upon supremacy of one group over many. In our society, this is the elevation of (the) white people (or settler groups) above everyone else in many areas of Canadian life. The inertia continues to be upheld by access, privilege and indifference.
  • That colonialism, through our immigration system, has had an impact on Indigenous Peoples.
  • That global events, such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Asian communities, fuel the rise of hate crimes in Canada. This has a profound effect on the safety and mental health of our racialized clients and employees.
  • That the experiences of many Indigenous Peoples, Black people and racialized groups intersect with sexism, ethnocentrism, classism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination, such as those experienced by persons with visible and non-visible disabilities. These intersections exacerbate an already difficult and in some cases precarious existence.
  • That, despite efforts and some progress made, IRCC has not yet achieved a fully diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace. Black employees remain in entry-level positions, and Indigenous employees, as well as employees from racialized groups, are not sufficiently represented at the executive level.
  • That many of our staff, as expressed in town halls, focus groups, trust circles and surveys, experience racism in the workplace, feel it impacts their career advancement and lack trust in senior management to address this.
  • That our fight against racism happens in solidarity with our fight against all forms of inequity.
  • That our renewed focus on Anti-Racism today builds on the tireless efforts of many unsung heroes who have long contributed to the fight against racism and all forms of inequity.
  • That racism spans beyond hate; it includes unconscious and unintended actions.

Interestingly, the idea of colonialism via immigration is mentioned. Of course, it’s primarily non-whites who are coming these days, which should throw the narrative for a loop.

When they speak of making workplaces more diverse and equitable, they really mean that the goal is to make them less white.

Pretty strange that people continue to come to Canada in record numbers, if this place really is the racist hellhole that’s being displayed.

11. Illegals Entering Via U.S./Canada Border

Although the report focused primarily on LEGAL immigration into Canada, the illegal brand is still worth talking about, since so few actually do. The United Nations gives detailed instructions and guidance on how to go about circumventing the border. The result, quite predictably, is that people keep trying to cross over.

YEAR: 2019
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 871 1 16 1 888
February 800 1 6 2 808
March 967 13 22 0 1,002
April 1,206 15 25 0 1,246
May 1,149 27 20 0 1,196
June 1,536 26 5 0 1,567
July 1,835 23 15 1 1,874
August 1,712 26 22 2 1,762
September 1,706 19 17 0 1,737
October 1,595 18 8 1 1,622
November 1,118 9 21 0 1,148
December 1,646 2 5 2 1,653
TOTAL 16,136 180 182 9 16,503
YEAR: 2020
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 1,086 7 7 0 1,100
February 976 2 2 0 980
March 930 7 18 0 955
April 1 0 5 0 6
May 17 0 4 0 21
June 28 1 3 1 33
July 29 2 17 0 48
August 15 3 0 0 18
September 30 4 7 0 41
October 27 0 4 0 31
November 24 0 8 0 32
December 26 2 8 0 36
TOTAL 3,189 28 84 1 3,302
YEAR: 2021
MONTH QUEBEC MANITOBA British Columbia OTHERS TOTAL
January 28 1 10 0 39
February 39 0 1 0 40
March 29 5 2 0 36
April 29 2 2 0 33
May 12 3 13 0 28
June 11 0 6 0 17
July 28 5 6 0 39
August 63 2 11 0 76
September 150 0 19 0 169
October 96 0 17 0 113
November 832 1 12 0 845
December 2,778 0 33 0 2,811
TOTAL 4,095 19 132 0 4,246

Although not listed in the Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, this is worth a mention. Illegal crossings from the U.S. did drop quite drastically in the Spring of 2020. Of course, the Government had to play along and make this “pandemic” seem real. In recent months, however, it seems the numbers are creeping back up again.

Keep in mind, the text of the Safe Third Country Agreement requires both Canada and the U.S. to consult with the UNHCR on refugees, and to get input from NGOs. We haven’t had meaningful borders in a long time.

As a reminder: the Trudeau Government scrapped the DCO, or Designated Country of Origin, back in 2019. This would allow for claims from “safe” countries to be denied much more quickly. However, with things the way they are, it seems nowhere is really safe. While the issue was very mainstream from 2017 to 2019, it seems to have disappeared.

In June 2020, a new policy kicked in to finally track who is leaving the country. Even more strange that a Trudeau would bring it in when he did. Probably to make it harder for people fleeing his regime.

Overall, the replacement agenda slowed down in 2020, but it rebounded significantly in 2021. Expect it to resume in full swing for 2022 and beyond.

Source Countries For International Students: 2004-2013

Ever wonder how many international students are in Canada, and where they come from? Well, we have some data available, courtesy of the Federal Government. Let’s take a look at this troubling pattern.

The replacement agenda (a.k.a. the Kalergi Plan) is alive and well. And flooding the country with students from abroad is just one way to help implement it. Colleges and universities get much needed cash, and students get access to life in the West.

One thing to note: it appears that the data from these tables, page 44, refers to the TOTAL number of international students within Canada. This is not the same as the number of visas issued annually.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2004
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 39,954 23.7 1
South Korea 26,700 15.8 2
United States 12,807 7.6 3
Japan 8,983 5.3 4
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,685 4.0 5
India 6,680 4.0 6
France 6,677 4.0 7
Taiwan 5,247 3.1 8
Mexico 3,384 2.0 9
Germany 2,294 1.4 10
Iran 2,110 1.4 11
Hong Kong 1,993 1.2 12
Pakistan 1,836 1.1 13
Vietnam 1,751 1.0 14
Bangladesh 1,731 1.0 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 122,147 72.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,492 27.6
GRAND TOTAL 168,639 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2005
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 40,021 23.5 1
South Korea 27,596 16.2 2
United States 13,130 7.7 3
Japan 9,057 5.3 4
India 7,153 4.2 5
France 6,952 4.1 6
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,944 3.5 7
Taiwan 4,928 2.9 8
Mexico 3,601 2.1 9
Iran 2,558 1.5 10
Germany 2,462 1.4 11
Hong Kong 2,397 1.4 12
Pakistan 1,795 1.1 13
Bangladesh 1,718 1.0 14
Vietnam 1,695 1.0 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 131,007 76.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,461 23.1
GRAND TOTAL 170,468 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2006
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 39,993 23.2 1
South Korea 29,551 17.1 2
United States 12,920 7.5 3
Japan 8,310 4.8 4
France 8,125 4.7 5
India 7,464 4.3 6
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,404 3.1 7
Taiwan 4,853 2.8 8
Mexico 3,839 2.2 9
Hong Kong 2,663 1.5 10
Germany 2,588 1.5 11
Iran 2,342 1.4 12
Pakistan 1,839 1.1 13
Morocco 1,723 1.0 14
Bangladesh 1,651 0.9 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 133,265 77.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 39,110 22.7
GRAND TOTAL 172,375 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2007
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 41,113 22.9 1
South Korea 30,676 17.1 2
United States 12,835 7.2 3
France 9,005 5.0 4
India 7,929 4.4 5
Japan 7,662 4.3 6
United Kingdom, Colonies 5,021 2.8 7
Taiwan 4,683 2.6 8
Mexico 3,861 2.2 9
Germany 2,947 1.6 10
Hong Kong 2,812 1.5 11
Iran 2,390 1.3 12
Brazil 1,959 1.1 13
Morocco 1,930 1.1 14
Nigeria 1,919 1.1 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 136,742 76.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 42,413 23.7
GRAND TOTAL 179,155 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2008
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 43,101 23.4 1
South Korea 28,976 15.7 2
United States 12,226 6.6 3
France 9,377 5.1 4
India 8,286 4.5 5
Japan 6,592 3.6 6
United Kingdom 4,627 2.5 7
Saudi Arabia 4,463 2.4 8
Taiwan 4,122 2.2 9
Mexico 3,879 2.1 10
Germany 3,141 1.7 11
Hong Kong 2,912 1.6 12
Iran 2,649 1.4 13
Brazil 2,396 1.3 14
Nigeria 2,178 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 138,925 75.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 45,254 24.6
GRAND TOTAL 184,179 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2009
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 50,446 24.7 1
South Korea 27,166 13.3 2
United States 12,128 5.9 3
India 11,682 5.7 4
France 10,358 5.1 5
Saudi Arabia 8,413 4.1 6
Japan 6,113 3.0 7
Mexico 4,184 2.1 8
United Kingdom, Colonies 4,151 2.0 9
Taiwan 3,816 1.9 10
Iran 3,507 1.7 11
Germany 3,102 1.5 12
Hong Kong 2,956 1.4 13
Nigeria 2,820 1.4 14
Brazil 2,415 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 153,257 75.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 50,795 24.9
GRAND TOTAL 204,052 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2010
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 57,339 25.4 1
South Korea 25,301 11.2 2
India 20,281 9.0 3
Saudi Arabia 12,267 5.4 4
United States 12,156 5.4 5
France 11,365 5.0 6
Japan 5,874 2.6 7
Mexico 4,384 1.9 8
Iran 3,930 1.7 9
Nigeria 3,648 1.6 10
Taiwan 3,639 1.6 11
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,563 1.5 12
Germany 3,142 1.4 13
Hong Kong 2,864 1.3 14
Brazil 2,722 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 172,475 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 52,920 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 225,395 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2011
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 68,469 27.5 1
India 27,339 11.0 2
South Korea 22,631 9.1 3
Saudi Arabia 14,180 5.7 4
France 12,715 5.1 5
United States 12,191 4.9 6
Japan 6,018 2.4 7
Mexico 4,801 1.9 8
Iran 4,755 1.9 9
Nigeria 4,432 1.8 10
Taiwan 3,370 1.4 11
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,360 1.4 12
Brazil 3,270 1.3 13
Pakistan 3,161 1.3 14
Vietnam 3,110 1.3 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 190,432 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 58,395 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 248,827 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2012
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 81,444 29.5 1
India 32,243 11.7 2
South Korea 20,285 7.4 3
France 14,748 5.3 4
Saudi Arabia 13,930 5.0 5
United States 12,302 4.5 6
Japan 6,486 2.4 7
Nigeria 5,481 2.0 8
Iran 5,229 1.9 9
Brazil 5,126 1.8 10
Mexio 4,977 1.8 11
Pakistan 3,588 1.3 12
Vietnam 3,523 1.3 13
Taiwan 3,358 1.2 14
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,352 1.2 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 208,961 75.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 66,922 24.5
GRAND TOTAL 275,883 100
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN CANADA: 2013
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 95,731 31.4 1
India 34,887 11.4 2
South Korea 19,123 6.3 3
France 16,486 5.4 4
Saudi Arabia 13,955 4.6 5
United States 12,263 4.0 6
Brazil 7,757 2.5 7
Nigeria 6,903 2.3 8
Japan 6,604 2.2 9
Mexico 5,306 1.7 10
Iran 5,177 1.7 11
Vietnam 4,173 1.4 12
Pakistan 4,045 1.3 13
Taiwan 3,500 1.1 14
United Kingdom, Colonies 3,462 1.1 15
TOTAL — TOP 15 239,372 78.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 65,504 21.4
GRAND TOTAL 304,876 100

Again, this refers to the total number of students in the country, not the amount of visas issued in any given year. Needless to say, those numbers continue to climb as well. Note: page 48 of the same document gives even higher totals for the same years.

For a reference point, consider page 15 of the 2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report to Parliament. It was reported that:

“In 2019, 827,586 international students held valid study permits in Canada. Of these, 402,427 new study permits were issued (a 15% increase from 2018).”

This means that the number of foreign students has nearly tripled from 2013 to 2019/2020. This is a major source of people entering the country.

Keep in mind, there are many, MANY pathways for international students to stay longer, or transition into permanent residents. The probable reason for not being open about this is to minimize the backlash from the already high immigration rates.

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

(A.0) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html
(A.1) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1966.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1966
(A.2) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1967.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1967
(A.3) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1968.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1968
(A.4) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1969.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1969
(A.5) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1970.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1970
(A.6) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1971.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1971
(A.7) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1972.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1972
(A.8) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1973.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1973
(A.9) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1974.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1974
(A.10) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1975.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1975
(A.11) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1976.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1976
(A.12) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1977.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1977
(A.13) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1978.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1978
(A.14) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1979.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1979
(A.15) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1980.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1980
(A.16) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1981.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1981
(A.17) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1982.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1982
(A.18) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1983.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1983
(A.19) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1984.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1984
(A.20) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1985.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1985
(A.21) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1986.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1986
(A.22) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1987.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1987
(A.23) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1988.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1988
(A.24) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1989.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1989
(A.25) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1990.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1990
(A.26) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1991.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1991
(A.27) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1992.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1992
(A.28) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1993.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1993
(A.29) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1994.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1994
(A.30) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1995.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1995
(A.31) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1996.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1996

(B.0) https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/statistics-open-data.html
(B.1) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/MP43-333-1999-eng.pdf
Canada Immigration Facts And Figures 1998
(B.2) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2000E.pdf
(B.3) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-10-2013-eng.pdf
Temporary Migration In Canada 2004-2013

(C.0) Parliament Report Index
http://archive.is/vwM6G
(C.1) 2004 Report to Canadian Parliament
2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.2) 2005 Report to Canadian Parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.3) 2006 Report to Canadian Parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.4) 2007 Report to Canadian Parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.5) 2008 Report to Canadian Parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.6) 2009 report to Canadian Parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.7) 2010 Report to Canadian Parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.8) 2011 Report to Canadian Parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.9) 2012 Report to Canadian Parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.10) 2013 Report to Canadian Parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.11) 2014 Report to Canadian Parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.12) 2015 Report to Canadian Parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.13) 2016 Report to Canadian Parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.14) 2017 Report to Canadian Parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15) 2018 Report to CDN Parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15.2) 2019-2021 Supplemental Report
http://archive.is/onyev
(C.16) 2019 Report to Canadian Parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.17) 2020 Report to Canadian Parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.18) 2021 Report to Canadian Parliament
2021.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1980 – 2020 Statistics

Note: This is a continuation of the recent piece, which covered the years from 1989 through 1998. The data needs to be shown in order to fully demonstrate what’s really going on.

This piece does come with an obvious disclaimer: it doesn’t take the hordes of “temporary” workers and student visas in account. That will be addressed elsewhere.

The Kalergi Plan was laid out for Europe a century ago. The goal was to ultimately get rid of all the whites, with a combination of open doors immigration, depressed local birth rates, and miscegenation. That said, the plot it not limited to Europe, but to all white countries.

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Replacement Migration Fits U.N. Definition Of Genocide

Isn’t trying to replace or displace a population considered genocide by the United Nations? Well, it does fit their own definitions….

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

It’s also worth asking if pluralism (imposed without the consent of the people) would amount to genocide under the terms as laid out by the U.N. in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide After all, if pluralism results in at least a partial replacement of a group, isn’t that bringing about its destruction?

3. Genocidal Population Replacement Long Time Problem

Let’s have a look at some of those recent years. While 2003 to 2020 has already been covered pretty extensively on this site, the problem extends much further than that.

PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1980
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 25,541 17.8 1
United Kingdom 18,245 12.8 2
United States 9,926 6.9 3
India 8,483 5.9 4
Hong Kong 6,309 4.4 5
Laos 6,206 4.4 6
Philippines 6,051 4.2 7
China 4,936 3.5 8
Portugal 4,228 3.0 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 89,955 62.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 53,132 37.1
GRAND TOTAL 143,087 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1980
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 4,330 3.0
Asia 71,062 50.0
South America 5,433 3.8
Caribbean/Antilles 7,362 5.2
United States 9,926 6.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 41,168 28.8
Others 3,297 2.8
Total 143,087 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1981
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 21,154 16.5 1
United States 10,559 8.2 2
India 8,256 6.4 3
Vietnam 8,251 6.4 4
China 6,550 5.1 5
Hong Kong 6,451 5.0 6
Philippines 5,859 4.6 7
Poland 3,850 3.0 8
Haiti 3,667 2.8 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 74,594 58
TOTAL — OTHERS 54,021 42.0
GRAND TOTAL 128,618 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1981
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 4,887 3.8
Asia 48,830 38.0
South America 6,136 4.8
Caribbean/Antilles 8,633 6.7
United States 10,559 8.2
Europe and the United Kingdom 46,295 36.0
Others 3,278 2.5
Total 128,618 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1982
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United Kingdom 16,445 13.6 1
United States 9,360 7.7 2
Poland 8,278 6.8 3
India 7,776 6.4 4
Hong Kong 6,542 5.4 5
Vietnam 5,935 4.9 6
Philippines 5,062 4.2 7
Germany 4,425 3.7 8
China 3,571 2.9 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 67,414 55.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 57,753 44.4
GRAND TOTAL 121,167 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1982
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 4,510 3.7
Asia 41,617 34.3
South America 6,870 5.7
Caribbean/Antilles 8,674 7.2
United States 9,360 7.7
Europe and the United Kingdom 46,150 38.1
Others 3,966 3.3
Total 121,167 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1983
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 7,381 8.3 1
India 7,041 7.9 2
Hong Kong 6,710 7.5 3
Vietnam 6,451 7.2 4
United Kingdom 5,737 6.4 5
Poland 5,094 5.7 6
Philippines 4,454 5.1 7
Haiti 2,827 3.2 8
Guyana 2,605 2.9 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 48,300 54.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 40,857 45.8
GRAND TOTAL 89,157 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1983
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa 3,659 4.1
Asia 36,906 41.4
South America 4,816 5.4
Caribbean/Antilles 7,216 8.1
United States 7,381 8.3
Europe and the United Kingdom 24,312 27.3
Others 4,867 5.4
Total 89,157 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1984
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 10,950 12.4 1
Hong Kong 7,696 8.7 2
United States 6,922 7.8 3
India 5,502 6.2 4
United Kingdom 5,104 5.8 5
Poland 4,499 5.1 6
Philippines 3,748 4.2 7
El Salvador 2,569 2.9 8
Jamaica 2,479 2.8 9
TOTAL — TOP 9 49,479 56.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,760 43.9
GRAND TOTAL 88,239 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1984
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 3,552 4.0
Asia 41,920 47.5
South America 4,085 4.6
Caribbean/Antilles 5,630 6.4
United States 6,922 7.8
Europe and the United Kingdom 20,901 23.7
Others 5,229 5.9
Total 88,239 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1985
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Vietnam 10,404 12.3 1
Hong Kong 7,380 8.8 2
United States 6,669 7.9 3
United Kingdom 4,454 5.3 4
India 4,028 4.8 5
Poland 3,617 4.3 6
Philippines 3,076 3.6 7
Jamaica 2,922 3.5 8
El Salvador 2,881 3.4 9
Guyana 2,301 2.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 47,732 56.6
TOTAL — OTHERS 36,570 43.4
GRAND TOTAL 84,302 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1985
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 3,545 4.2
Asia and Pacific 38,597 45.8
South America 4,356 4.2
North/Central America 5,016 6.0
Caribbean/Antilles 6,132 7.2
United States 6,669 7.2
Europe and the United Kingdom 18,859 22.4
Others 1,128 1.2
Total 84,302 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1986
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 7,275 7.3 1
India 6,940 7.0 2
Vietnam 6,622 6.7 3
Hong Kong 5,893 5.9 4
Poland 5,231 5.3 5
United Kingdom 5,088 5.1 6
Jamaica 4,652 4.7 7
Philippines 4,102 4.1 8
Guyana 3,905 4.0 9
El Salvador 3,167 3.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 52,875 53.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 46,344 46.7
GRAND TOTAL 99,219 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1986
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 4,770 4.8
Asia and Pacific 41,600 41.9
South America 6,686 6.7
North/Central America 6,078 6.1
Caribbean/Antilles 8,874 9.0
United States 7,275 7.4
Europe and the United Kingdom 22,709 22.9
Others 1,227 1.2
Total 99,219 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1987
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 16,170 10.6 1
India 9,692 6.4 2
United Kingdom 8,547 5.6 3
United States 7,967 5.2 4
Philippines 7,343 4.8 5
Portugal 7,300 4.8 6
Poland 7,036 4.7 7
Guyana 6,073 4.0 8
Vietnam 5,668 3.7 9
Jamaica 5,422 3.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,218 53.4
TOTAL — OTHERS 70,880 46,6
GRAND TOTAL 152,098 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1987
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 8,501 5.6
Asia and Pacific 67,337 44.3
South America 10,801 7.1
North/Central America 6,873 4.5
Caribbean/Antilles 11,227 7.4
United States 7,967 5.2
Europe and the United Kingdom 37,563 24.7
Others 1,829 1.2
Total 152,098 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1988
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 23,281 14.4 1
India 10,409 6.4 2
Poland 9,231 5.7 3
United Kingdom 9,172 5.7 4
Philippines 8,310 5.1 5
United States 6,537 4.0 6
Portugal 6,467 4.0 7
Vietnam 6,196 3.8 8
Jamaica 3,923 2.4 9
Iran 3,669 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 87,195 53.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 74,734 46.2
GRAND TOTAL 161,929 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1988
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 9,380 5.8
Asia and Pacific 81,136 50.1
South America 7,255 4.5
North/Central America 5,671 3.5
Caribbean/Antilles 9,439 5.9
United States 6,537 4.0
Europe and the United Kingdom 40,689 25.1
Others 1,822 1.1
Total 161,929 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1989
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 19,908 10.4 1
Poland 15,985 8.3 2
Philippines 11,383 5.9 3
Vietnam 9,425 4.9 4
India 8,819 4.6 5
United Kingdom 8,420 4.4 6
Portugal 8,189 4.3 7
United States 6,931 3.6 8
Lebanon 6,179 3.2 9
China 4,430 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 99,679 51.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 92,322 48.1
GRAND TOTAL 193,001 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1989
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 12,199 6.3
Asia and Pacific 93,261 48.6
South America 8,685 4.5
United States 6,931 3.6
Europe and the United Kingdom 52,107 27.1
North/Central America 5,870 3.1
Caribbean/Antilles 10,909 5.7
Others 2,041 1.1
Total 193,001 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1990
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 29,261 13.7 1
Poland 16,579 7.7 2
Lebanon 12,462 5.8 3
Philippines 12,042 5.6 4
India 10,624 5.1 5
Vietnam 9,081 4.2 6
United Kingdom 8,217 3.8 7
China 7,987 3.7 8
Portugal 7,917 3.7 9
United 6,084 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 120,256 56.1
TOTAL — OTHERS 93,974 43.9
GRAND TOTAL 214,230 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1990
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 13,440 6.3
Asia and Pacific 111,739 52.2
South America 8,898 4.2
United States 6,084 2.8
Europe and the United Kingdom 51,945 24.3
North/Central America 7,781 3.6
Caribbean/Antilles 11,689 5.5
Others 2,654 1.2
Total 214,230 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1991
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 22,340 9.7 1
Poland 15,731 6.8 2
China 13,915 6.0 3
India 12,848 5.6 4
Philippines 12,335 5.3 5
Lebanon 11,987 5.2 6
Vietnam 8,963 3.9 7
United Kingdom 7,543 3.3 8
El Salvador 6,977 3.0 9
Sri Lanka 6,826 3.0 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 119,465 51.8
TOTAL — OTHERS 111,316 48.2
GRAND TOTAL 230,781 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1991
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 16,087 7.0
Asia and Pacific 119,955 52.0
South America 10,582 4.6
United States 6,597 2.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 48,055 20.8
North/Central America 13,404 5.8
Caribbean/Antilles 12,922 5.6
Others 3,179 1.4
Total 230,781 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1992
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 38,910 15.4 1
Philippines 13,273 5.2 2
India 12,675 5.0 3
Sri Lanka 12,635 5.0 4
Poland 11,878 4.7 5
China 10,429 4.1 6
Vietnam 7,681 3.2 7
United States 7,537 3.0 8
Taiwan 7,456 2.9 9
United Kingdom 7,138 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 129,612 51.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 123,230 48.7
GRAND TOTAL 252,842 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1992
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 19,633 7.7
Asia and Pacific 139,216 54.4
South America 10,389 4.1
United States 7,537 2.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 44,871 17.5
North/Central America 12,526 4.9
Caribbean/Antilles 14,952 5.8
Others 3,718 1.5
Total 252,842 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1993
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 36,574 14.3 1
India 20,472 8.0 2
Philippines 19,772 7.7 3
Taiwan 9,867 3.9 4
China 9,466 3.7 5
Sri Lanka 9,103 3.6 6
Vietnam 8,301 3.2 7
United States 8,014 3.1 8
United Kingdom 7,159 2.8 9
Poland 6,877 2.7 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 135,605 53.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 120,214 47.0
GRAND TOTAL 255,819 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1993
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 16,918 6.6
Asia and Pacific 147,323 57.6
South America 9,580 3.7
United States 8,014 3.1
Europe and the United Kingdom 46,602 18.2
North/Central America 7,737 3.0
Caribbean/Antilles 16,563 6.5
Others 3,082 1.2
Total 255,819 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1994
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 44,169 19.7 1
Philippines 19,097 8.5 2
India 17,225 7.7 3
China 12,486 5.6 4
Taiwan 7,411 3.3 5
Sri Lanka 6,671 3.0 6
United States 6,234 2.8 7
Vietnam 6,230 2.8 8
United Kingdom 5,971 2.8 9
Bosnia-Hercegovina 4,905 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 130,399 58.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 93,476 41.8
GRAND TOTAL 223,875 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1994
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 13,706 6.1
Asia and Pacific 141,587 63.2
South America 7,919 3.5
United States 6,234 2.8
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,641 17.3
North/Central America 3,503 1.6
Caribbean/Antilles 9,980 4.5
Others 2,215 1.0
Total 223,875 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1995
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 31,746 14.9 1
India 16,215 7.6 2
Philippines 15,149 7.1 3
China 13,291 6.3 4
Sri Lanka 8,926 4.2 5
Taiwan 7,691 3.6 6
Bosnia-Hercegovina 6,270 3.0 7
United Kingdom 6,161 2.9 8
United States 5,185 2.4 9
Pakistan 3,996 1.9 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 114,630 53.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 97,874 46.1
GRAND TOTAL 212,504 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1995
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 14,631 6.9
Asia and Pacific 129,106 60.8
South America 7,538 3.5
United States 5,185 2.4
Europe and the United Kingdom 41,266 19.4
North/Central America 2,842 1.3
Caribbean/Antilles 10,056 4.5
Others 1,880 0.8
Total 212,504 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1996
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 29,966 13.3 1
India 21,276 9.4 2
China 17,516 7.8 3
Taiwan 13,207 5.8 4
Philippines 13,132 5.8 5
Pakistan 7,753 3.4 6
Sri Lanka 6,151 2.7 7
United States 5,837 2.6 8
Iran 5,828 2.6 9
United Kingdom 5,585 2.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 126,251 55.9
TOTAL — OTHERS 99,522 44.1
GRAND TOTAL 225,773 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1996
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 36,503 16.15
Asia and Pacific 124,771 55.20
South and Central America 18,878 8.35
United States 5,869 2.60
Europe and the United Kingdom 40,009 17.70
Not Stated 20 0.01
Total 225,773 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1997
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
Hong Kong 22,242 10.30 1
India 19,614 9.08 2
China 18,530 8.58 3
Taiwan 13,321 6.17 4
Pakistan 11,233 5.20 5
Philippines 10,873 5.03 6
Iran 7,477 3.46 7
Sri Lanka 5,069 2.35 8
United States 5,043 2.33 9
United Kingdom 4,659 2.16 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 118,061 54.65
TOTAL — OTHERS 97,983 45.35
GRAND TOTAL 216,044 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1997
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 37,794 17.49
Asia and Pacific 117,076 54.19
South and Central America 17,425 8.07
United States 5,043 2.33
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,673 17.90
Not Stated 33 0.02
Total 216,044 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1998
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 19,749 11.34 1
India 11.34 8.80 2
Philippines 8,172 4.69 3
Hong Kong 8,083 4.64 4
Pakistan 8,081 4.64 5
Taiwan 7,164 4.11 6
Iran 6,772 3.89 7
South Korea 4,910 2.82 8
United States 4,764 2.74 9
Russia 4,299 2.47 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 87,321 50.16
TOTAL — OTHERS 86,779 49.84
GRAND TOTAL 174,100 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1998
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 32,534 18.69
Asia and Pacific 84,036 48.27
South and Central America 14,003 8.04
United States 4,764 2.74
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,477 22.10
Not Stated 286 0.16
Total 174,100 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 1999
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 29,095 15.33 1
India 17,415 9.17 2
Pakistan 9,285 4.89 3
Philippines 9,285 4.89 4
South Korea 7,212 3.80 5
Iran 5,903 3.11 6
United States 5,514 2.90 7
Taiwan 5,461 2.88 8
Sri Lanka 4,719 2.49 9
United Kingdom 4,476 2.36 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 98,240 51.76
TOTAL — OTHERS 91,576 48.24
GRAND TOTAL 189,816 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 1999
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 33,441 17.62
Asia and Pacific 96,370 50.77
South and Central America 15,188 8.00
United States 5,514 2.90
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,912 20.50
Not Stated 391 0.21
Total 189,816 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 2000
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 36,715 16.15 1
India 26,086 11.48 2
Pakistan 14,182 6.24 3
Philippines 10,086 4.44 4
South Korea 7,626 3.35 5
Sri Lanka 5,841 2.57 6
United States 5,814 2.56 7
Iran 5,608 2.47 8
Yugoslavia 4,723 2.08 9
United Kingdom 4,647 2.04 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 121,328 53.38
TOTAL — OTHERS 105,985 46.62
GRAND TOTAL 227,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2000
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 40,815 17.96
Asia and Pacific 120,539 53.03
South and Central America 16,944 7.45
United States 5,814 2.56
Europe and the United Kingdom 42,885 18.87
Not Stated 316 0.14
Total 227,313 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 2001
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 40,315 16.09 1
India 27,848 11.12 2
Pakistan 15,341 6.12 3
Philippines 12,914 5.16 4
South Korea 9,604 3.83 5
United States 5,902 2.36 6
Iran 5,737 2.29 7
Romania 5,585 2.23 8
Sri Lanka 5,514 2.20 9
United Kingdom 5,350 2.14 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 134,110 53.54
TOTAL — OTHERS 116,374 46.46
GRAND TOTAL 250,484 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2001
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 48,078 19.20
Asia and Pacific 132,711 53.01
South and Central America 20,129 8.04
United States 5,894 2.35
Europe and the United Kingdom 43,204 17.26
Not Stated 330 0.13
Total 250,346 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN YEAR 2002
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
China 33,231 14.51 1
India 28,815 12.58 2
Pakistan 14,164 6.18 3
Philippines 11,000 4.80 4
Iran 7,742 3.38 5
South Korea 7,326 3.20 6
Romania 5,692 2.48 7
United States 5,288 2.31 8
Sri Lanka 4,961 2.17 9
United Kingdom 4,720 2.06 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 122,939 53.67
TOTAL — OTHERS 106,152 46.33
GRAND TOTAL 229,091 100
PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2002
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 46,113 20.13
Asia and Pacific 118,899 51.90
South and Central America 19,417 8.48
United States 5,288 2.31
Europe and the United Kingdom 38,841 16.95
Not Stated 533 0.23
Total 229,091 100

https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
Source for 1995/1996:
Source for 1996-1998

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2008
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 51,313 20.8
Asia and Pacific 117,480 47.5
South and Central America 26,493 10.7
United States 11,216 4.5
Europe and the United Kingdom 40,649 16.4
Not Stated 96 0.0
Total 247,247 100

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2009
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 56,151 22.2
Asia and Pacific 117,174 46.5
South and Central America 26,776 10.6
United States 9,723 3.9
Europe and the United Kingdom 42,311 16.8
Not Stated 37 0.0
Total 252,172 100

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2010
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 66,692 23.8
Asia and Pacific 135,008 48.1
South and Central America 28,357 10.1
United States 9,242 3.3
Europe and the United Kingdom 41,317 14.7
Not Stated 73 0.0
Total 280,689 100

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2011
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 59,323 23.8
Asia and Pacific 120,330 48.4
South and Central America 27,447 11.0
United States 8,830 3.5
Europe and the United Kingdom 32,755 13.2
Not Stated 63 0.0
Total 248,748 100

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

PERMANENT RESIDENTS ADMITTED BY REGION IN 2012
REGION NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Africa and the Middle East 56,060 21.7
Asia and Pacific 129,592 50.3
South and Central America 26,864 10.4
United States 9,414 3.7
Europe and the United Kingdom 35,828 13.9
Not Stated 129 0.0
Total 257,887 100

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2021 Annual Report to Parliament)

Are things starting to make sense? Immigration policies for the last 50+ years have focused on Asians and Africans, replacing (to a large degree) the overwhelmingly European makeup that was Canada for many years.

Of course, speaking up about what’s apparent will lead to cries of racism.

One thing people really need to get clear: so-called “conservatives” have no interest whatsoever in preserving demographics or the makeup of a country. They fully support the genocide agenda, but try to pitch it from a more economic perspective.

White replacement is a very real thing. Only the most obtuse or unobservant cannot see what’s going on, especially given how blatant it is..

While Liberals are generally quite open for their disdain of Europeans, “Conservatives” behave in a stealthier and more subversive manner. They camouflage their true intentions, making them more dangerous.

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

(A.0) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/index.html
(A.1) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1966.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1966
(A.2) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1967.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1967
(A.3) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1968.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1968
(A.4) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1969.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1969
(A.5) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1970.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1970
(A.6) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1971.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1971
(A.7) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1972.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1972
(A.8) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1973.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1973
(A.9) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1974.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1974
(A.10) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1975.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1975
(A.11) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1976.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1976
(A.12) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1977.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1977
(A.13) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1978.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1978
(A.14) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1979.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1979
(A.15) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1980.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1980
(A.16) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1981.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1981
(A.17) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1982.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1982
(A.18) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1983.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1983
(A.19) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1984.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1984
(A.20) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1985.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1985
(A.21) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1986.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1986
(A.22) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1987.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1987
(A.23) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1988.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1988
(A.24) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1989.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1989
(A.25) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1990.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1990
(A.26) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1991.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1991
(A.27) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1992.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1992
(A.28) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1993.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1993
(A.29) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1994.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1994
(A.30) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1995.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1995
(A.31) https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/202/301/immigration_statistics-ef/mp22-1_1996.pdf
Canada Immigration Statistics 1996

(B.0) https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505817/publication.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/statistics-open-data.html
(B.1) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/MP43-333-1999-eng.pdf
Canada Immigration Facts And Figures 1998
(B.2) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2000E.pdf
(B.3) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/MP43-333-2002E.pdf
(B.4) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/Ci1-8-2003-eng.pdf
(B.5) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/Ci1-8-2004E.pdf
(B.6) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/Ci1-8-2005E.pdf
(B.7) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/cic/Ci1-8-2006E.pdf
(B.8) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/cic/Ci1-8-2007E.pdf
(B.9) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/cic/Ci1-8-2008E.pdf
(B.10) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/cic/Ci1-8-2009-eng.pdf
(B.11) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/cic/Ci1-8-2010-eng.pdf
(B.12) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/cic/Ci1-8-2011-eng.pdf
(B.13) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/cic/Ci1-8-2012-eng.pdf
(B.14) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-9-2013-eng.pdf
(B.15) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/cic/Ci1-8-9-2014-eng.pdf

(C.0) Parliament Report Index
http://archive.is/vwM6G
(C.1) 2004 Report to Canadian Parliament
2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.2) 2005 Report to Canadian Parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.3) 2006 Report to Canadian Parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.4) 2007 Report to Canadian Parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.5) 2008 Report to Canadian Parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.6) 2009 report to Canadian Parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.7) 2010 Report to Canadian Parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.8) 2011 Report to Canadian Parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.9) 2012 Report to Canadian Parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.10) 2013 Report to Canadian Parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.11) 2014 Report to Canadian Parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.12) 2015 Report to Canadian Parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.13) 2016 Report to Canadian Parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.14) 2017 Report to Canadian Parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15) 2018 Report to CDN Parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.15.2) 2019-2021 Supplemental Report
http://archive.is/onyev
(C.16) 2019 Report to Canadian Parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.17) 2020 Report to Canadian Parliament
2020.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
(C.18) 2021 Report to Canadian Parliament
2021.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament

Pluralism Is A Policy Of Population Replacement

Recently, “Conservative” Michelle Rempel-Garner posted on Twitter calling for (presumably) her party to adopt the policy of “pluralism”. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it. But what is pluralism really?

Merriam-Webster defines pluralism as: “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization”.

It has nothing to do with assimilation. Instead, it’s discouraged.

Furthermore, the definition also includes “a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state [of pluralism]”. Let the word games begin now….

[1] Liberals promote policies of “diversity”.
[2] Conservatives promote policies of “pluralism”.

But in the end, these are the same things. If you’re championing pluralism, you’re championing diversity. This leads to society being carved up and balkanized along various identity groups.

Since these people are all U.N. puppets, here’s something else that’s worth addressing. There are different ways to advocate for genocide.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

It’s also worth asking if pluralism (imposed without the consent of the people) would amount to genocide under the terms as laid out by the U.N. in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide After all, if pluralism results in at least a partial replacement of a group, isn’t that bringing about its destruction?

These policies are pushed in Western countries, and only in Western countries. This means that the consequences are deliberate.

Endorsing the globohomo agenda also seems to be part of conservatism these days, which shows just how far things have fallen.

Rempel supports pluralism, which is essentially state-imposed diversity. And how exactly does one make a country more diverse? Quite simply, you have to replace (or displace) at least a portion of the local population in order to make room for the new arrivals.

Now, are conservatives proud of this?

After all, if forced diversity is something that everyone’s on board with, doesn’t that lend credence to the notion that whites are being replaced?

Rempel did explain herself more fully:

That was not the first or the last time I have had to counter that particular racist diatribe. It is a core tenet of so-called “great replacement theory”; an anti-Semitic white-nationalist conspiracy theory involving a supposed plot to replace white people with non-whites.

The narrative it usually follows is that the immigration policy of western countries is designed to replace whites, or to “out breed them,” in order to prevent whites from getting jobs, dominating culture, or electing a “pro-white” government. It is racism built on longstanding colonial and white nationalist dogma that never truly has been erased, even after decades spent building pluralistic policy.

It is pure ignorance to believe that white replacement dogma doesn’t exist in Canada.

In a wink to this sentiment, some right leaning political candidates in recent years, both at the federal and provincial levels, have promised to “lower immigration levels” without explaining what benefit this would bring to Canada.

On May 18, 2022, Rempel wrote a piece that appeared in the National Post, denouncing “White Replacement Theory” as the paranoid rantings of racists. She condemns such conspiracies, and calls for people who endorse it to be removed from the party.

A serious question to ask: how can a Member of Parliament openly call for the creation of a “pluralistic” society, but condemn any talk of “white replacement”?

Do these people simply object to their ideals being explained as what they really are?

A little self promotion: Borderless Canada is still available online. Learn about what’s been going on in this country. Virtually all major issues can be directly tied to immigration and border security, and it’s not racist or bigoted to discuss these hard truths.

(1) https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1517246163828846597
(2) https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1527006649059254273
(3) https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michelle-rempel-garner-we-have-a-duty-to-reject-conspiracy-theories-about-white-replacement
(4) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluralism
(5) https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

%d bloggers like this: