Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes that we need to restrict free speech in order to prevent people — in this case Muslims — from becoming violent and injuring or killing people. He also thinks that such people have the right to keep their Canadian citizenship. (From Canuck Politics. Although a political ad, this one is entirely truthful, and worth a mention.)
1. Islam, Terrorism, Religious Violence
Check this series for more information on the religion of peace. Tolerance of intolerance is being forced on the unwilling public. Included are efforts to crack down on free speech, under the guise of “religious tolerance”. What isn’t discussed as much are the enablers, whether they are lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, of members of the media.
2. Trudeau (Sort Of) Defends Violence
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently commented on the recent terrorist attacks by Muslim migrants in France. The brutal slayings Trudeau referenced included the slaughter of three Christians at a Catholic Church in Nice, as well as the decapitation of a fourth grade teacher earlier this month.
The attacks were a response by a Muslim who answered the call to jihad against Samuel Paty, a history teacher. In his class, Paty showed a cartoon of Islam’s central figure, Mohammad, drawn by satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
To its credit, the French state stood firm on one of its foundational principles enshrined in law – the concept of laïcité, or official secularism. France is officially a secular state within which, people may worship as they see fit, but no religion may impose restrictions on the population for religious reasons. It also contains a strong precept of freedom of speech.
As a result of President Macron’s refusal to submit to sharia rules on images of Mohammad after the decapitation of the history teacher, leaders from the Islamic world condemned France, resulting in an increase of security globally at all French consulates and embassies.
Yesterday, Trudeau weighed in on the issue in his typical fashion, firmly taking both sides of the issue.
And yes, he certainly did.
There are always limits. In a pluralist, diverse, and respectful society like ours, we must be aware of the impact of our words, our gestures, on others. Especially toward those communities and populations that still live in a system that continues to discriminate extensively.
This article and interview are posted on RAIR Foundation, USA. Recent terrorism attacks in France had been condemned by most, but justified by some others.
Trudeau refused to completely denounce the latest act of violence. Instead, he partially defends it, claiming that people need to be sensitive when it comes to other people’s beliefs and feelings. While true, Trudeau never really condemns the violence, and plays both sides.
Ironically, Trudeau actually has a moment of pure honesty. In pluralistic, diverse societies, free speech must be limited in order to maintain social harmony. He inadvertently makes a great argument against multiculturalism.
3. Islam Used As Weapon Against West
Some very obvious questions have to be asked.
First: Why are people of such an incompatible background brought over in such large numbers? There will never be integration, especially when many have no interest in doing so. So why is this really being done?
Second: There’s a financial drain on social services, one that isn’t addressed enough. Why isn’t it openly talked about more in the public sphere?
Third: Is cracking down on free speech one of the goals? Do politicians support mass migration of Muslims in order to create chaos, and force the need to have more control? Beyond simple replacement, is destabilization an objective in drafting these policies?
Fourth: Who’s opening the floodgates in the first place? Who’s making challenges in court, lobbying politicians, and trying to influence public opinion? Who’s really calling the shots? They can’t be oblivious to the consequences of these open borders policies.
Unfortunately, these questions won’t be answered by public officials. However, this site will try to.
Thank you to RAIR, and Sassy, for the translation.
Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. This is to focus on the civil side (such as custody issues). While this seems impressive, Canada has done much domestically and internationally to undermine and weaken the principles. Even the UN has studied the connection between illegal border crossings and smuggling, trafficking and child exploitation. Quite simply, without real borders, the Hague Convention is meaningless.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
For the previous work in the TSCE series. This is the 40th anniversary of the Hague Convention of Child Abduction. However, Governments ensure that it will continue. Also, take a look at open borders movement, the abortion and organs industry, and the NGOs who are supporting it. This is information that won’t be found in the mainstream or alternative media.
CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21, full treaty. CLICK HERE, for Gov’t info on Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for text of Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for the many exemptions in S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for FIPA agreement Canada/China. CLICK HERE, for previous review on FIPA. CLICK HERE, for CD18.5, sanctuary for illegals in Toronto. CLICK HERE, for Toronto EC5.5, human and sex trafficking resolution. CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress on sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-32, lowering age of consent for anal. CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, reduced criminal penalties. CLICK HERE, for 2nd review of Bill C-75 (child offences). CLICK HERE, for asking if Gov’t actually supports trafficking.
Article 3
The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where –
a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and
b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or
would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights. The Convention shall cease to apply when the child attains the age of 16 years.
Article 5
For the purposes of this Convention –
a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence.
Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.
The application shall contain –
a) information concerning the identity of the applicant, of the child and of the person alleged to have removed or retained the child;
b) where available, the date of birth of the child;
c) the grounds on which the applicant’s claim for return of the child is based;
d) all available information relating to the whereabouts of the child and the identity of the person with whom the child is presumed to be.
.
The application may be accompanied or supplemented by –
e) an authenticated copy of any relevant decision or agreement;
f) a certificate or an affidavit emanating from a Central Authority, or other competent authority of the State of the child’s habitual residence, or from a qualified person, concerning the relevant law of that State;
g) any other relevant document.
Article 13
Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that –
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the
child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate
to take account of its views.
.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall
take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central
Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.
Article 17
The sole fact that a decision relating to custody has been given in or is entitled to recognition in the requested State shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention, but the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take account of the reasons for that decision in applying this Convention.
In short, this is an international agreement to enforce child custody orders, or family disputes. Note: the children don’t have to be return if administrators determine there is some danger. Unfortunately, this seems entirely subjective.
4. Announcement From Global Affairs Canada
Statement
October 25, 2020 – Ottawa, Ontario – Global Affairs Canada
.
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today issued the following statement:
.
“Today, we mark the 40th anniversary of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
“Every year, in Canada and abroad, thousands of children are wrongfully taken across international borders by a parent or guardian in violation of rights of custody. This has devastating effects on families, and it is the children who suffer the most. Children must be at the heart of family justice, and mechanisms like the Hague Convention on child abduction are essential in order to assist them in these terrible situations.
.
“Canada, along with 100 contracting states, continues to support this global effort to protect children from wrongful removal or retention and return them to their country of residence. We continue to call on the global community to join us and to ratify this important convention.
.
“We are committed to working with our international partners to continue to protect children and to reinforce the operation of the convention.”
While this all sounds fine, it should be noted that Canada has done a lot, both domestically, and with international treaties to weaken and undermine the spirit of this agreement.
What other treaties or bills do this?
5. Canada’s Bills/Treaties Since 1980
Here are some of the major developments in Canada in the last few decades. All of these either weaken the borders and/or reduce the criminal penalties involved.
UN Agenda 21 (1992)
Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (2002)
FIPA (2012)
Sanctuary cities (First in 2013)
CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK (2015)
UN Agenda 2030 (2015)
New York Declaration (2016)
Bill C-6 citizenship for terrorists (2016)
Bill C-32/C-75 (2018)
UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
USMCA, NAFTA 2.0 (2020)
It doesn’t matter who’s in power. They’re all globalists.
6. Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
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?
The treaty was pretty ineffective anyway, given that people could still get into the country as long as they BYPASSED legal border ports. Now, thanks to the Federal Court, the agreement is effectively dead.
Of course, the tens of thousands entering Canada illegally in recent years pales in comparison to the hordes of LEGAL migrants entering under various programs.
7. FIPA Between Canada And China
FIPA largely eliminated the border between Canada and the Chinese. This means that Chinese nationals can freely enter Canada, almost without restrictions. They can also bring their own security to look after their national interests. Makes it easy to smuggle products — or people — into Canada.
8. Sanctuary Cities Forming In Canada
In 2013, Toronto became the first city in Canada to officially obtain status a sanctuary city. It was supported by “conservatives” Doug and Rob Ford. How are child custody agreements supposed to be enforced overseas when children can simply disappear in one of them?
Now list includes: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Edmonton and others. In the 2018 Ontario election, the NDP campaigned on turning Ontario into a sanctuary province.
9. CANZUK (CDA, Australia, New Zealand, UK)
The Trans-Tasmanian Partnership is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand to let citizens work and freely travel in each other’s countries. CANZUK would essentially be an expansion of that agreement by adding both Canada and the UK. This is an actual open borders arrangement which could be further expanded.
CANZUK International was formed in 2015, and members of the CPC are some of its biggest supporters.
It’s also interesting how the justifications have changed. Previously, it was about opportunity. Now it’s about containing Chinese influence, which Conservatives allowed to grow in the first place. One obvious example is FIPA.
10. UN Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development
Agenda 2030 was signed in September 2015 by then PM Stephen Harper. It signs away more of Canada’s sovereignty to the “sustainable development agenda”, and makes mass migration across international borders even easier. So-called conservatives would be hard pressed to explain why this is okay, but why the Paris Accord and UN Global Migration Compact are so wrong. There is a lot of overlap with the content.
Worth a mention is that “Conservative” Brian Mulroney was in power in 1992 when Agenda 21 was signed in Brazil.
11. New York Declaration, UN GMC Prelude
This was signed in September 2016, just a year after Agenda 2030. The UN Global Migration Compact was largely based on this text. Both agreements are to make it easier to bring large numbers of people across borders, and to establish international standards. It’s not difficult to see how this would make child abduction and transportation easier to do.
12. Bill C-6, Citizenship For Terrorists
It cheapens Canadian citizenship when anyone can get it. This is especially true for convicted terrorists and traitors. There’s also the increased likelihood of people gaming the system to avoid being sent back, for say crimes against children.
13. Bill C-32/C-75, Reducing Criminal Penalties
If the government is concerned about the well being of children, then why would they introduce a bill to water down criminal penalties for sex crimes against children, and reduce the age of consent?
Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime
Bill C-75 “hybridized” these offences. What this means is that they were initially to be tried by indictment (felony), but now prosecutors have discretion to try them summarily (misdemeanor). Of course, there were plenty of Section 83 offences (terrorism) that were also hybridized.
14. UN Global Migration Compact
What is strange about the UNGMC is that its text explicitly undermines its stated goals. While the UN supposedly opposed smuggling, the agreement says people shall not be punished. And while condemning trafficking, the UN provides advice and guidance on how to do it more successfully.
15. USMCA, More Than Just Trade
The new USMCA (U.S., Mexico & Canada Agreement) is far more than just a trade agreement. It ensures that more “workers” will be coming across the borders, and cedes areas of labour rights to the UN.
16. How Does Any Of This Help Children?
Remember, this is the 40th anniversary on the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Member states, (of which Canada is one), should take seriously the obligation to ensure that children are not taken across borders illegally, even if it’s by a parent, or some other guardian.
Instead, Canada signs treaties and passes bills that ensure that this will continue. Erasing borders, and reducing penalties does nothing to deter child smuggling. In fact, it only encourages it.
Sure, these changes don’t explicitly state moving children around illegally is a major goal (or even a goal at all). But as borders become less meaningful, this will certainly increase.
The IHR are an instrument of international law that is legally-binding on 196 countries, including the 194 WHO Member States. The IHR grew out of the response to deadly epidemics that once overran Europe. They create rights and obligations for countries, including the requirement to report public health events. The Regulations also outline the criteria to determine whether or not a particular event constitutes a “public health emergency of international concern”.
Canada has been following the legally binding dictates of the World Health Organization and their International Health Regulations. Let’s see what some of them are.
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Worth mentioning: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations (IHR), that the WHO imposes are legally binding on all members.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for International Health Regulations Archives.
To other countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO.
Countries are required to share information with WHO according to the IHR.
Technical advice is available here. Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research. Countries should also follow travel advice from WHO.
To all countries
It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoVinfection, and to share full data with WHO. Technical advice is available on the WHO website.
Countries are reminded that they are legally required to share information with WHO under the IHR.
Any detection of 2019-nCoV in an animal (including information about the species, diagnostic tests, and relevant epidemiological information) should be reported to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as an emerging disease.
Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread, and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research.
The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.
Countries must inform WHO about travel measures taken, as required by the IHR. Countries are cautioned against actions that promote stigma or discrimination, in line with the principles of Article 3 of the IHR.
Under Article 43 of the IHR, States Parties implementing additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic (refusal of entry or departure of international travellers, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods, and the like, or their delay, for more than 24 hours) are obliged to send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation. WHO will review the justification and may request countries to reconsider their measures. WHO is required to share with other States Parties the information about measures and the justification received.
The WHO Regional Emergency Directors and the Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) provided regional and the global situation overview. After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the outbreak still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and offered advice to the Director-General.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.
The Emergency Committee will be reconvened within three months or earlier, at the discretion of the Director-General. The Director-General thanked the Committee for its work.
Risk communication and community engagement
Continue risk communications and community engagement activities through the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) and other platforms to counter rumours and misinformation.
.
Continue to regularly communicate clear messages, guidance, and advice about the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, how to reduce transmission, and save lives.
Travel and Trade
Continue working with countries and partners to enable essential travel needed for pandemic response, humanitarian relief, repatriation, and cargo operations.
.
Develop strategic guidance with partners for the gradual return to normal operations of passenger travel in a coordinated manner that provides appropriate protection when physical distancing is not feasible.
After ensuing discussion, the Committee unanimously agreed that the pandemic still constitutes a public health emergency of international concern and offered advice to the Director-General.
.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 continues to constitute a PHEIC. He accepted the advice of the Committee to WHO and issued the Committee’s advice to States Parties as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR (2005).
(6) Continue to work with partners to counter mis/disinformation and infodemics by developing and disseminating clear, tailored messaging on the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects; encourage and support individuals and communities to follow recommended public health and social measures.
(7) Support diagnostics, safe and effective therapeutics and vaccines’ rapid and transparent development (including in developing countries) and equitable access through the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator; support all countries to implement the necessary clinical trials and to prepare for the rollout of therapeutics and vaccines.
(8) Work with partners to revise WHO’s travel health guidance to reinforce evidence-informed measures consistent with the provisions of the IHR (2005) to avoid unnecessary interference with international travel; proactively and regularly share information on travel measures to support State Parties’ decision-making for resuming international travel.
Mr. Colin Carrie: Yes.
.
Are you aware of international standards for quarantine?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The international health regulations would be the regulations that individual states would then use to design their quarantine acts. I don’t know of any other standards out there or best practices to look at quarantine acts, but the IHRs really have been used over the years as the starting point.
.
Now, with the improvement of the international health regulations, maybe, as is the case in Canada, changes will occur to quarantine acts in other countries in order to better comply with the international health regulations.
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: How is the communication now between different levels of government–for example, the federal government and the provinces–when something occurs?
.
(1140)
.
Dr. Paul Gully: The communication between the agency and the chief medical officers, for example, has always been good. The challenge during SARS was not necessarily the communication, but the information that was available to communicate.
.
The ability of Ontario to collect information, for example, to analyse it, and then for us to get it and to share it internationally was a challenge. That’s certainly something that Ontario and the Government of Canada have recognized, and as a result of that, other jurisdictions have recognized that as well.
.
We’ve certainly taken note of the lessons from SARS and the Naylor report. We’re always trying to improve that communication, but then, as I said, we are dependent on the abilities of other jurisdictions.
.
Mr. Colin Carrie: All right. I thought that was important, to see the different communications between each level, provincial and federal, but also international, because it seems that this is such a global thing right now.
Dr. Paul Gully: We had a meeting in September with the provinces and territories in Edmonton about the Quarantine Act as it stood at that time. We got input. We’re having another teleconference with the Council of Chief Medical Officers next week to talk about a number of issues that were raised and to further clarify what they would like to see as changes to the bill as it stands at the present time.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Why did Health Canada proceed with a separate Quarantine Act at this time?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: Those of us who administered the Quarantine Act over the years always knew there were deficiencies in the old act, and because it was rarely used there wasn’t the inclination to update it. As a result of SARS and utilization of the act, which certainly put it under close scrutiny, and the requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the various reports on SARS, it was felt that updating the act sooner rather than later was appropriate.
.
In addition, during discussions about the international health regulations of the World Health Organization, it was felt that it was appropriate to do it and to spend time and energy, which it obviously does require, to do it now, before other parts of legislative renewal, of which Mr. Simard is well aware, were further implemented or further discussion was carried out.
.
(1200)
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I have one question. In terms of the Quarantine Act for our country, where are we at in terms of best practices models when we look at the international spectrum?
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I don’t know the acts in other countries, but because we are updating our act right now and we’re taking into account the probable revisions to the international health regulations, I believe we would be well in the forefront in terms of having modern legislation.
.
The Chair: Thank you.
.
Ms. Skelton.
.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: Following up on what Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Carrie said, it says in subclause 5(1) that the minister may “designate persons, or classes of persons, as analysts, screening officers or environmental health officers”. I think we should have in the act who those people are, so that they make sure they are trained professionals.
,
(1210)
.
Dr. Paul Gully: I believe that’s defined under the quarantine officer. At least in part, the quarantine officer refers to a medical practitioner or other health practitioner.
.
The reason for distinguishing between the three is that the screening officers would not require much training as the quarantine officers, as we defined. For an environmental officer, if it’s not defined, the implication is…. The quarantine officers are in subclause 5(2). I don’t believe, in fact, we’ve defined the qualifications of an environmental health officer, and maybe we should think about that. I think the term in this country, the use of the term “environmental health officer”, does imply some training, but I take your point.
Get it now? The 2005 Quarantine Act was Ottawa domestically implementing the latest edition of the International Health Regulations, or at least what what the changes were anticipated to be.
Restricting international travel (or not in this case), contact tracing, and efforts to shut down what they call “misinformation” are all done at the behest of the World Health Organization.
In fact, the Federal Government doesn’t run the show, nor do the Provinces. As part of our membership with WHO, Canada is legally obligated to follow the IHR.
Human trafficking, smuggling, and child exploitation are directly connected to the open borders policies that Western Governments have supported for years.
1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation
Check the link for more information on the TSCE series. Also, more information on Canada’s borders is available here, here, here, here, and here. Open borders, sanctuary cities, and human smuggling/trafficking are directly linked. The first 2 help enable the other 2.
To make this clear: so-called “conservatives” are fully complicit in efforts to erase the Canadian border, and to allow people to come en masse. While they SAY a lot of the right things, their actions speak very differently. Conservatives cannot be trusted on issues such as border security or immigration.
4. Entry/Exit System Finally Implemented
Canada collects basic biographic information on travellers who enter and leave the country by land to ensure complete travel history information is available, thereby strengthening the management of our border.
.
Biographic entry information is routinely collected directly from all travellers entering Canada upon presentation to a CBSA officer at a port of entry as part of the primary inspection process. Canada also collects exit information in the land mode. Canada receives biographic entry information from the United States (U.S.) on all travellers who enter the U.S. through a land border crossing, thereby enabling the creation of a Canadian exit record.
.
Regulatory amendments for the air mode are expected to come into force in Summer 2020. Once fully implemented in the air mode, Canada will collect basic exit information directly from air carriers through passenger manifests. Exit information collected in the air mode will not be shared with the U.S.
Simply put, travel to countries other than the U.S. are not logged by the Canada Border Services Agency. That site has been altered, and now contains the following information.
Effective June 25, 2020, the CBSA requires air carriers to submit manifests, including those carriers that previously tested and were certified for the Air Exit Program prior to 2020. To begin onboarding, the CBSA encourages all air carriers to contact us as soon as possible.
In the previous system, there was a major loophole in the exit system. Exits were only tracked of people going to the United States (by air, sea, or land crossings). Since June 25, however, all air travel out of the country is logged by the CBSA, closing a very large loophole.
This is good news to see this implemented. However, CBSA confirmed that they don’t actually do anything with the information unless they are looking for specific people.
Interestingly, it is the Trudeau Government that implemented this change. The previous Harper Government was in power for 10 years but chose not to do anything about it. Sure, it took 4 years to come into effect.
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’”
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.
This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.
6. (Foreign) NGOs Trying To Open Borders
Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.
Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.
By its own admission, the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR) partners with more than 900 NGOs and civil society groups.
7. (Foreign) NGOs Wage Lawfare In Court
This was discussed in other articles, but there have been at least 3 major attempts in Federal Court to strike down the concept of a “safe country”, and make it easier for people identifying as refugees to come to Canada. See this page for a summary. Groups like Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the Canadian Council of Churches are not entirely Canadian, despite what names they may go by.
8. Abolishing The “Safe Country” Concept
On May 17, 2019, Canada removed the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) practice. That meant some 42 countries — mostly in Europe — which were considered safe countries were not anymore. The only remaining one was the United States, as covered by the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
9. UNHCR Was Always 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.
Something few people know is that the UNHCR is actually a party to the Safe 3rd Country Agreement. It is not just an agreement between the U.S. and Canada, but includes the UN in a consulting role.
10. Federal Court Erasing S3CA Altogether
Thanks to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Canada, the Safe Third Country Agreement has been struck down entirely. This means that anyone “identifying” as a refugee can now come to Canada from the United States.
Canada does have the option to appeal, and this ruling gives 6 months to draft new legislation. However, with this government, it seems unlikely either will happen.
11. Opening The Floodgates LEGALLY
No, bringing people into Canada in large numbers doesn’t have to be in a sneaky way. Keep in mind, all parties support genocidal levels of replacement migration, and support various globalist initiatives. Conservatives are just as bad, however many people are duped into thinking otherwise.
12. Erasing Borders: CANZUK/UN GMC
(Andrew Scheer finally speaks on the 2018 UN Global Migration Compact. He feigns being indignant, and pretends that borders are something conservatives actually care about. He would come across as believable, if he showed any consistency.)
Conservatives offer nothing except the illusion of opposing. In this example: Andrew Scheer claims to oppose the UN Global Migration Compact (after initially remaining silent). However, CANZUK — an open borders treaty that can be expanded — is official party policy. Some real mental gymnastics are at play here. Furthermore, Erin O’Toole explicitly states at 2:00 in the CANZUK video that he wants to expand CANZUK to other countries.
There is bipartisan support for open borders. But, do politicians at least enact measures to ensure that people, especially children, are not subject to exploitation? Not exactly.
13. Reluctance For DNA Testing: Child/Parent
When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship (where it has been claimed) or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.
Canada only does DNA testing of alleged family members when it cannot establish otherwise that there is a relationship. This has been public for years now, but is still rare. Considering the amount of fraud that has been documented elsewhere, logic dictates that this should be the norm, in order to protect children from being trafficked. Even the UNHCR frowns on the practice of DNA testing, calling on it to be a last resort. The UNCHR also advises not to deny applications simply because of the DNA may not match. See this post for more background information.
14. Weakening Child Sex-Crime Penalties
Because of Bill C-75, criminal prosecutors now have discretion to try the following offences summarily (lesser) as opposed to mandatory indictment (more severe). Check out the list:
Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex (reduced)
Section 172(1): Corrupting children
Section 173(1): Indecent acts
Section 180(1): Common nuisance
Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime
One of Trudeau’s big bills (Bill C-75) in his first term was to reduce the criminal penalties for many sex crimes against children, and for terrorism offences.
15. Lowering The Age Of Consent For Anal
One of Trudeau’s earlier pieces of legislation was Bill C-32. However, the contents were eventually shoved into Bill C-75. This would have reduced the age of consent for anal sex form 18 to 16. If Trudeau was interested in “equality”, perhaps a better solution all around would be raising the overall age to 18.
16. Controlled Opposition “Tough On Crime”
Remember Stephen Harper, who was supposedly “tough on crime”? His idea of being hard on child sex offenders was raising the minimum sentence (for indictable offences), from 3 months to 1 year. That’s still pretty lenient, at least in most people’s eyes.
17. Courts Strike Mandatory Minimum Sentences
If it isn’t politically helpful to reduce the penalties, there is another option: have judges strike down existing penalties as “cruel and unusual”. Have a judge find some reasoning to make it work.
There are plenty of examples of this sort of this in action.
(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.
(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.
Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.
The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.
19. Child Exploitation As “Multiculturalism”
Along with racial and cultural differences, multiculturalism brings other serious problems. One of them is having to accept sketchy practices like child marriages, and grooming gangs as “being tolerant”. When there are no standards, then anything goes.
20. These Things Are Connected
There is a relationship between border security and trafficking or exploitation of people. The open borders policies of Western nations have the dual effect of allowing anyone to cross international lines, and of bringing incompatible ideologies with them. These are not random events, but a coordinated effort to overrun and replace our nations. This is a bipartisan effort — and no one is blameless in politics.
To borrow the famous quote: tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
In 2013, brothers Doug Ford and Rob Ford voted to officially make Toronto a sanctuary city. This allows people in the city, (but without a legal right to be in Canada), to continue to access social services. It also makes deportations harder to implement, and furthers balkanization of Toronto. However, there is another consequence of doing this: making human trafficking, smuggling, & child exploitation easier.
1. Fords Vote To Create Sanctuary Toronto
City Council Decision
City Council on February 20 and 21, 2013, adopted the following:
.
1. City Council re-affirm its commitment to ensuring access to services without fear to immigrants without full status or without full status documents.
2. City Council request the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to conduct an internal review, with community consultation, of City Divisions, Agencies and Corporations, and to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee in the 3rd quarter of 2013 on the following:
.
a. a review of opportunities to improve access without fear;
.
b. opportunities for City-funded agencies to improve access without fear;
.
c. providing training for front line staff and managers to ensure that undocumented residents can access services without fear; and
.
d. a complaints protocol and a public education strategy to inform Torontonians of the City’s policy.
3. City Council request the City Manager and the Executive Director, Social Development, Finance and Administration to report to the Community Development and Recreation Committee on current Federal and Provincial arrangements to deliver immigration and settlement programs in Ontario, and options for strengthening intergovernmental collaboration and partnerships with the City of Toronto.
4. City Council request the Federal government to establish a regularization program for undocumented residents, and that a letter be sent to the Government and Opposition parties to this end.
5. City Council request the Federal government to increase Provincial Nominee Program levels so that the Province can bring in workers with specific skills who have left Canada as undocumented workers with Canadian children, and that they be given priority processing by Canadian Citizenship and Immigration.
6. City Council request the Provincial government to review its policies for Provincially-funded services for undocumented residents with a view to ensuring access to health care, emergency services, community housing and supports for such residents within a social determinants of the health framework.
Here is what the final resolution actually says. Despite all attempts to make it sound compassionate and humanitarian in nature, this really is an “amnesty for illegals” piece oflegislation.
#1 is a commitment to fund services for illegal aliens.
#2(c) is to train workers that illegals have access to services.
#2(d) is to convince the public that this is somehow okay.
#4 is asking amnesty for illegal aliens.
#5 is asking the Federal Government to give priority to illegal aliens with anchor baby children in the citizenship line.
#6 is asking the Province of Ontario to review its current decision to NOT directly fund services for illegal aliens.
2. Fords Support Amnesty For Illegal Aliens
One has to marvel at the mental gymnastics the Ford Brothers engage in. They vote FOR creating a sanctuary city, which allows illegal aliens to receive free city benefits. They vote FOR illegals with anchor baby children going to the front of the line in a pathway to citizenship. However, they also vote to REMOVE illegals from Toronto, and push for legal immigration.
How does this work? Give illegals access to public services, then deport them, then bring them back to get expedited for a pathway to citizenship?
Possibly the vote on the amendment to deport illegals was just an attempt to pander to constituents who hadn’t read the entire legislation.
We will work with professional associations and the federal government to streamline the process for foreign credential recognition so that highly-educated immigrants can find meaningful employment in their areas of expertise.
And we’ll take steps to make sure that rights and dignity are respected by calling on the federal government to stop using provincial jails to detain immigrants.
We will declare Ontario a Sanctuary Province.
In the 2018 Ontario election campaign, NDP leader Andrea Horwath took a lot of criticism for a proposal (see page 11) to make Ontario a sanctuary province. Much of that came from the “Conservative” party of Doug Ford. In reality though, Horwath was just proposing to expand what Ford was on record as having voting for.
Amnesty or sanctuary cities/provinces are horrible ideas, certainly. But Doug Ford really has no moral high ground to stand on here.
4. Businesses Support Cheap Labour Pool
This pilot program was covered previously on this site. While it specifies 500 workers and their families (some 2,000 to 3,000 people total), don’t be naive and think that this will be a one time deal. Why do many businesses support the inflow of labour? Because it helps to drive wages down.
Now, certainly the cheap labour and strain on social services are large problems in a sanctuary city. However, there is something much darker, and more evil to worry about.
5. Smuggling/Trafficking & Open Borders Link
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.
This was addressed in Part 9 of the series. Even the United Nations recognizes the connection between illegal entry, and human smuggling & trafficking. While this 2011 study focused on borders, the same idea applies to sanctuary cities. After all, it will be a lot easier for illegals to get by if they can access social services without actually having to be in the country lawfully.
6. Toronto’s Human Trafficking Problem
The City of Toronto condemns the horrific crime of human trafficking and is committed to working collaboratively to support survivors of human trafficking and eradicate human trafficking in Toronto.
Over the last decade, concern regarding human trafficking in Canada has grown. In Toronto, human trafficking for the purposes of forced sexual labour has received significant attention.
Human trafficking is a complex issue for which there is limited data that can be relied upon to fully describe and understand the problem. From the limited data that is available, it is clear that human trafficking occurs throughout Toronto.
The City’s work related to human trafficking falls into the four main categories of the anti-human trafficking lens, where the person being trafficked, or at risk of being trafficked, is put at the centre, and their safety, well-being and human rights are prioritized:
.
(1) identifying people being or at-risk of being trafficked
(2) supporting survivors of human trafficking
(3) preventing human trafficking
(4) avoiding increasing the vulnerability of people engaged in consensual sex work.
On June 18, 2019, Council adopted the report (EC5.4) that outlines a number of actions that the City proposes to take, in collaboration with other agencies, corporations and divisions to support survivors of human trafficking.
Certainly, human trafficking is awful. There is no excuse whatsoever for forcing or coercing someone, or for exploitation of people. This is even more true when minors are involved.
But what does any of this have to do with open borders, or with Toronto becoming a sanctuary city? Take a look at some of Toronto’s “measures to combat” trafficking, and it becomes more clear.
Service Access
The City has many services that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. While some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status, the City’s Access to City Services for Undocumented Torontonians (Access T.O.) ensures access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or full status documents.
Yes, letting people into the country illegally, or establishing sanctuary cities are harmless, critics say. However, the City of Toronto is fully aware that trafficking happens to people who aren’t in the country legally. Whether entry comes from illegally entering, or overstaying a legal entry, the result is much the same. People are here — unknown to the Government — who are being exploited.
Did Doug and Rob Ford vote to support human trafficking? No they didn’t. However, by supporting Toronto becoming a “sanctuary city”, they helped ensure that illegals will continue to flood into Toronto, and that identifying people will become that much harder.
(page 9) Service access: The City has many services, as noted above, that may be useful to survivors of human trafficking. However, some people may be fearful of accessing services because they do not have immigration status. The City’s Access Toronto policy is relevant. In February 2013, City Council affirmed its commitment to ensuring access to services to all Torontonians, including those without full status or without full status documents.
(page 11) Access to income: Toronto Employment and Social Services has established several policies to support individuals who are vulnerable and at-risk of exploitation, including human trafficking survivors. For example, within eligibility for Ontario Works, procedures are in place that permit the waiver of documentation requirements on a short term basis when information is not readily available due to circumstances beyond a person’s control.
Individuals without immigration status in Canada can access Toronto Employment and Social Services Employment Centres, and apply for financial support through the Hardship Fund or Emergency Energy Fund that is administered by Toronto Employment and Social Services. Additionally, Toronto Employment and Social Services Service Delivery Guidelines ensure clients are connected to relevant support services and community resources.
The City of Toronto is fully aware that a portion of victims (though it’s not clear how many), are in the country illegally. Open borders, combined with sanctuary status, ensures that this will only get worse.
The Fords may not have explicitly voted for this, but it is the consequence. People involved in human trafficking — both as victims and perpetrators — are now able to live in a major city, and are completely unknown to authorities.
8. Toronto Pays Ethnic Anti-Trafficking NGOs
Not too many convictions since Toronto Police Services began keeping track in 2014. And considering recent calls to defund the police, how will this get any better?
(Appendix F) In September 2017, the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, Government of Ontario, announced a total of approximately $18.6 million to 44 partners and agencies across the province for projects that aim to prevent human trafficking and support survivors. Grants for Toronto-based partners were allocated the total amount of $3.1 million and the funded period started in 2017.
FCJ Refugee Centre: Identification, intervention and prevention of labour trafficking and exploitation among migrant workers ($369,289)
South Asian Legal Clinic Ontario: Legal education for victims and survivors of human trafficking and front-line service providers in the areas of criminal law, immigration law and employment law, including e-learning tools that can be accessed throughout Ontario ($156,768)
Butterfly (Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network): Butterfly: Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network is managing the Migrant Sex Workers Outreach and Education Project which provides outreach specifically to migrant sex workers across Toronto. Peer workers provide monthly harm reduction workshops at informal gatherings to reduce isolation and increase harm reduction knowledge amongst migrant sex workers. ($199,311)
Native Family Child and Youth Services Toronto: Comprehensive culture-based outreach, prevention, healing, and treatment services for Indigenous survivor ($406,325)
Native Women’s Resource Centre Toronto Facilitation of regional working groups to provide education, evidence-based interventions, holistic individualized supports and wraparound resources that empower survivors. This will include 12 community engagements ($678,641)
Human trafficking seems to be such a widespread problem that groups are choosing to help victims along ethnic lines. Again, how does making Toronto a sanctuary city cause it to be any safer?
9. Sanctuary Cities Shield Predators
Although there is more data available in the United States on illegals being released, the same issue exists in Canada. Predators in Canada are already released after short sentences. If sanctuary cities exist, it becomes easier to disappear. Either the person can hide in such a city, or, if deported, can come back and hide fairly easily.
Think of it from this perspective: if city staff doesn’t care whether its residents are there legally, how seriously will it take the plight of people being exploited?
Distinctions between consensual sex work and human trafficking
A broad range of stakeholders are concerned about the conflation of consensual sex work and human trafficking. While consensual sex work may include some elements of exploitation, as many forms of work do, it is distinct from human trafficking in that the “worker” is not coerced. There is general agreement that anti-human trafficking measures should focus on people who are being coerced and controlled.
When consensual sex work is conflated with human trafficking, there is often increased surveillance of sex work and efforts to “rescue” sex workers. Avoiding conflating consensual sex work and human trafficking is important so that sex workers are not further surveilled, stigmatized, criminalized1, and forced underground, resulting in greater marginalization and isolation. The more socially and physically isolated sex workers are, the more vulnerable they are to violence and exploitation. Relatedly, providing access to services and resources that promote harm reduction to people engaged in consensual sex work both supports sex workers’ well-being and provides opportunities for sex workers to build relationships that may be useful if they choose to leave the sex industry and/or if they experience violence or exploitation.
The Toronto Anti-Trafficking Action Report tries to have it both ways. It repeatedly insists that consensual sex workers are not being exploited. Yet it also says that sex workers can be (and are) exploited to a degree. It seems almost schizophrenic in its reasoning.
13. John Tory Supports Sanctuary Toronto
Toronto Mayor, and former Ontario Conservative Party leader, John Tory, also supports Toronto being a sanctuary city. To think this man almost became Ontario Premier in 2007. Then again, his successors are no better.
Unfortunately, getting a real answer to this question is difficult, as there is little data available. However, the BC Government has some worthwhile information of a general nature. The RCMP does provide some numbers, and international trafficking is addressed.
It’s expected that liberal globalists will support sanctuary cities. The real disappointment, however, is so-called “conservatives” who go along with it anyway.
Regardless of what a person feels about letting high levels of refugees into their country, most people will agree on one fact: they want the “family units” who enter to actually be made up of related family members.
However, as is being seen more and more, particularly in the United States, this is not the case. Adults are coming with children they claim are “their” children, but DNA testing is proving that false. In a U.S. pilot program, nearly 1/3 of professed families were not blood relatives.
Obvious questions have to be asked. Who are these children? Who are the supposed parents? Are the children being used to simply help adults along, or are they being trafficked? How are these arrangements being set up, and where? Those are just a few that need to be answered.
Bizarrely though, migrant rights groups and civil liberties groups don’t seem so concerned about those questions. Instead, they focus on what will happen to the DNA sample afterwards.
1. UN High Commission On Testing
IV. DNA testing to establish family relationships in the refugee context
.
12. …. Thus, interviewing family members should normally be undertaken as the primary means of establishing family relationships. Where documents are available, they should be used as corroborative evidence. Care should however be taken to prevent that, because of pressure to produce such documents, refugees are driven to take risky actions. These may include, for instance, desperate measures to sneak back home and/or approach the authorities of the country of origin, which could place them at risk of arrest, detention or other inordinate consequences.
13. In line with the above, UNHCR considers that DNA testing to verify family relationships may be resorted to only where serious doubts remain after all other types of proof have been examined, or, where there are strong indications of fraudulent intent and DNA testing is considered as the only reliable recourse to prove or disprove fraud.
14. Even if the existence of a blood link is not established, this may not necessarily imply an intention to commit fraud. Cultural and social dimensions of ascribing family relationships should be considered. In the refugee context, the nature of ascribing family relationships should be understood based on the refugee’s social and cultural background. UNHCR also believes that individuals will be less inclined to misrepresent non-existing blood ties if they are confident that persons whom they have always treated and considered as part of the family and with whom they have developed strong personal bonds, or where there is mutual dependency, will be considered as part of the family for purposes of family reunification.
refugee.dna.testing.unchr.1
While it does pay lip service to the idea that nations need to be secure in who they allow to enter their borders, it becomes clear that the UN High Commission on Refugees sees DNA testing as a last resort. Even in cases where there is no biological link, the UNHCR recommends “looking at the culture” of the people anyway.
2. Canadian Policy On Testing
When to do DNA testing
An applicant may be given the option of undergoing DNA testing in cases in which documentary evidence has been examined and there are still doubts about the authenticity of a parent-child genetic relationship or when it is not possible to obtain satisfactory relationship documents. A DNA test to prove a genetic relationship should be suggested by IRCC only as a last resort.
For citizenship purposes, it is only necessary to establish one parent-child relationship with a Canadian citizen parent. However, it is preferable to take samples of genetic material from both parents as it facilitates the testing process.
A relative or family member’s DNA can be useful to DNA test results for immigration purposes, even if that person is not specifically involved with the sponsorship application. In such cases, the processing office needs to be satisfied that the person is a blood relative of the sponsor and that the person’s DNA sample is collected in accordance with these guidelines.
The IRCC does require DNA testing to prove a genetic relationship, but does so only as a last resort, when family ties cannot be proven otherwise. While this may not be a huge problem for people coming in many streams, it should be required for those coming via refugee channels, especially those coming illegally.
3. CBSA Checking Ancestry Sites
Immigration officials are using DNA testing and ancestry websites to try to establish the nationality of migrants, the Canada Border Services Agency said on Friday.
CBSA spokesperson Jayden Robertson said the agency uses DNA testing to determine identity of “longer-term detainees” when other techniques have been exhausted.
“DNA testing assists the CBSA in determining identity by providing indicators of nationality thereby enabling us to focus further lines of investigation on particular countries,” Robertson said in an email.
But the process raises concerns about privacy of data held by ancestry websites, and highlights political pressure over the handling of migrants by Canada’s Liberal government. More than 30,000 would-be refugees have crossed the U.S.-Canada border since January 2017, many saying they were fleeing U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.
Again, the DNA testing appears to be a last resort to verify identity, rather than a main one. Moreover, it’s sickening how people living in the U.S. illegally are able to enter Canada and try to claim asylum. The rules aren’t meant to allow for asylum shopping.
4. Fraud Longstanding Problem In U.S.
Q: Why did the US decide to conduct DNA testing of some nationality groups applying for resettlement in the US?
.
A: PRM and DHS/USCIS jointly decided to test a sample of refugee cases due to reported fraud in the P-3 program, particularly in Kenya. This pilot program later expanded to test applicants in other parts of Africa. (See questions and answers below.)
.
Q: What rate of fraud did you discover?
.
A: The rate of fraud varied among nationalities and from country to country, and is difficult to establish definitively as many individuals refused to agree to DNA testing.
.
We were, however, only able to confirm all claimed biological relationships in fewer than 20% of cases (family units). In the remaining cases, at least one negative result (fraudulent relationship) was identified, or the individuals refused to be tested.
.
Q: Which refugees are being tested? From which countries?
.
A: We initially tested a sample of some 500 refugees (primarily Somali and Ethiopian) in Nairobi, Kenya under consideration for U.S. resettlement through the P-3 program. After that sample suggested high rates of fraud, we expanded testing to Ethiopia, Uganda, Ghana, Guinea, Gambia and Cote d’Ivoire. Most of the approximately 3,000 refugees tested are from Somalia, Ethiopia, and Liberia, as these nationalities make up the vast majority of P-3 cases.
.
It is important to note that the initial DNA testing was limited to members of families applying for the P-3 program, and not between the applicants and the anchor relative in the United States.
Even in late 2008, the U.S. State Department was reporting that on DNA testing for refugee families had interesting results. Less than 20% of cases were confirmed to be actual families. Others failed testing, or simply refused to undergo it.
Also in that same page, the State Department stated that they stopped accepting affidavits of relationship for people coming from all countries. It stopped accepting the documents and has looked for other ways to verify identity and relationships.
5. How Prevalent Is It?
Relevant part starts at about 8:00 mark in video. Conversation gets to child separation, and that entire families end up getting released. In pilot program, 30% of “families” were made up of unrelated people. Children are in fact being recycled and used to help multiple families.
The National Sentinel reported that U.S. border guards are finding a very high number of so-called families entering the U.S. illegally from Mexico, who aren’t related at all. From the Washington Examiner:
In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system’s temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.
“There’s been some concern about, ‘Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?'” the official said. “Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members.”
In some incidents where Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the adults they would have to take a cheek swab to verify a relationship with a minor, several admitted the child was not related and did not take the DNA test, which was designed by a U.S. company.
Nearly a third of the families coming into the U.S. as refugees aren’t in fact related. Okay, who are they really? What exactly are the children being used for? Smuggling aids for adults? Are they being recycled? Are they being trafficked? Has any money changed hands to make these arrangements happen?
6. Civil Liberties Groups Oppose Testing
The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year to stop family separation and to require the immediate reunion of all separated children and parents. On June 29, a federal judge issued a national injunction in our class-action lawsuit, requiring the reunification of thousands. Now, we must ensure the administration heeds the court’s ruling and the policy of family separation ends once and for all. The government deported hundreds of parents without their children — without a plan for how they would be ever be found. The ACLU is working to locate every separated parent and advise them of their rights to be reunited.
We are in the courts, streets, and in Congress to hold the Trump administration accountable for the irreparable damage it has done to these young lives. We need you in this fight.
One has to wonder why, if the U.S. was such a horrible place, would people come by the tens of thousands to go there? Why would people travel for thousands of miles just to end up on concentration camps?
The tortured logic is also on display here. The ACLU wants DNA testing to be done only as a last resort, and took the Government to court on that issue. However, they also oppose separating children from parents (or at least people who “claim” to be families).
In short, the ACLU wants children and adults to remain together, and be promptly released into the United States. Yet, they oppose the one measure which would determine if they are in fact related by blood.
The ACLU is far from the only organization that opposes DNA testing, while trying to get “families” released into the mainland. It would seem logical to at least ensure that the children are with family members, but that doesn’t seem to be a concern. The priority with opposing DNA testing seems to be to keep it out of criminal databases.
Who knows how many of these children are being trafficked by their so-called parents? What about the human rights and civil liberties of the children involved? However, groups like the ACLU don’t address that.
