Canada is changing, to put it mildly. How serious is it, and what are the main sources of it? Let’s take a dive into those Annual Reports to Parliament.
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.
Note: the 2019 report was added to the article on April 18, 2020.
3. Where Do People Come From?
This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.
(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)
Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran
might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern. This does not lead to enrichment, but to balkanization, It leads to low trust communities where people care less and less about others. Robert Putnum’s research (though he tries to spin the findings) is a must read.
4. True Size When Temps Factored In
Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)
Report Year
Stated Imm
Temporary
Actual Imm
2004
221,352
143,444
364,796
2005
235,824
147,204
383,028
2006
262,236
156,622
418,858
2007
251,649
174,361
426,010
2008
236,758
229,834
466,592
2009
247,243
272,028
519,271
2010
252,179
263,618
515,797
2011
280,681
278,433
559,114
2012
248,748
289,225
537,973
2013
257,887
318,383
576,270
2014
258,953
333,175
592,128
2015
260,404
420,708
681,112
2016
271,845
468,126
739,971
2017
296,346
551,342
847,688
2018
331,226
620,149
951,375
Shocking isn’t it? This is what it looks like when “temporary” workers and students are factored in. Now, not all will stay, but the option is there. These programs are in fact pathway to permanent residence.
To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.
Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?
6. Population Replacement Is Real
Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Chinese year after year, and the Chinese enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.
Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Indians year after year, and the Indian enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.
Is there any connection between importing large numbers of Muslims year after year, and the Muslim enclaves that are around Canada? Maybe there is something to it.
This is nothing short of full fledged population replacement going on. Import (on an ongoing basis), hundreds of thousands of people from cultures and backgrounds that have little to do with the European founding that Canada has.
However, it is taboo for Europeans to have an identity to be proud of. Other nations have a strong history, culture, and founding stock. But in Western nations, have instead, the values of “diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism”.
It is appreciated that Global News has reported on the numbers of foreigners who would otherwise be inadmissible to Canada under a September 2010 change in visa policies. They go on to list the approximately 3,000 people who have been granted Temporary Residence Permits since then. They use the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament as references, and give a link to the 2004 to 2018 reports.
For reference, those reports are often cited on this website, and can be found in the above section.
However, it seemed Global News (either accidently or intentionally) omitted a much, MUCH bigger problem. Between 2002 and 2017, there have been over 186,000 people let into Canada who were otherwise inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. What Global News Tells You
(Page 21 of 2011 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
YEAR
TRP Issued
2010
17
2011
53
2012
53
2013
280
2014
385
2015
1,063
2016
596
2017
555
This article reports on a new directive to allow previously inadmissible people into Canada if it is deemed to be in the national interest. Not only is this troubling, but the secrecy behind it is alarming as well. Digging into it and publishing the information is a very important thing for the Canadian public.
It’s also pleasing to see that this news outlet took the time to dive into the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament to get numbers for how many people this was happening to. A great bit of investigative journalism.
Presumably this is what Global News refers to, and yes, it does grant the Immigration Minister discretion to hand out permanent residence. Now, in fairness, there is a difference between this provision which allows for PR status, and coming to Canada temporarily under Rule 24(1). Still, if a person is a serious threat, they should not be allowed into Canada, temporarily or permanently.
Humanitarian and compassionate considerations — Minister’s own initiative
25.1 (1) The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, examine the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.
Marginal note:
Exemption
(2) The Minister may exempt the foreign national from the payment of any applicable fees in respect of the examination of their circumstances under subsection (1).
Now, what’s the problem with the original article? Despite going through these reports, they chose not to get into how many foreigners were allowed to live temporarily in Canada, despite being previously barred. This included various criminal and security inadmissibility grounds. It seems bizarre to ignore the scope of the problem while focusing on a small piece of it.
5. What Global News Leaves Out
While this important information to know, there is a much larger picture to consider. Let’s start with the over 186,000 people given Temporary Resident Permits from 2002 to 2017. The overwhelming majority of those are either for criminal inadmissibility, serious criminal behaviour, or failing to comply with regulations.
Specifically, look at Section 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Again, this refers to “temporary” residents, while Rule 25.1 applies to potential “permanent” residents. Still, it is a very important omission to make.
Temporary resident permit
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.
(Page 29 of 2004 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 33 of 2005 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 25 of 2006 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 26 of 2007 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 29 of 2008 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 19 of 2009 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of 2010 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 21 of 2011 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
A very interesting situation. Global News (accurately reports on 17 TRPs granted under this new secretive order, with no information available. However, they choose to omit the 12,452 TRP that “were” granted to inadmissible people, the majority being criminal or serious criminal. They also leave out 86 security ineligibilities, and 24 human rights ineligibilities.
And no, this is not a cut and paste job. They really are on adjacent paragraphs.
(Page 18 of 2012 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
Again, this is the actual report to Parliament, and not any editing on my part. Global News (correctly) points out the 53 TRP issued under Rule 25.2(1), but then ignores the 11,526 TRPs handed out to other inadmissible people. Seems to be missing the obvious here.
(Page 22 of 2013 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 18 of 2014 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 18 of 2015 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 15 of 2016 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 19 of 2017 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
(Page 38 of 2018 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)
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
How does a serious news outlet go through the same Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration (as done here), and grab the data on 3,000 people let in, but then leave out the 199,000 others who should not have entered?
Seriously, was this done intentionally?
6. Grounds For Inadmissibility
Security
34 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for
(a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests;
(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(c) engaging in terrorism;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c).
(2) [Repealed, 2013, c. 16, s. 13]
Human or international rights violations
35 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for
(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
(b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
(c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association;
(d) being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act on the grounds that any of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(1.1)(c) or (d) of that Act has occurred; or
(e) being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).
Marginal note:
Clarification
(2) For greater certainty, despite section 33, a person who ceases being the subject of an order or regulation referred to in paragraph (1)(d) or (e) is no longer inadmissible under that paragraph.
Serious criminality
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
Marginal note:
Criminality
(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.
Marginal note:
Application
(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Organized criminality
37 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality for
(a) being a member of an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of an offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment, or in furtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence, or engaging in activity that is part of such a pattern; or
(b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or laundering of money or other proceeds of crime.
Health grounds
38 (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition
(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;
(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or
(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.
Marginal note:
Exception
(2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply in the case of a foreign national who
(a) has been determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations;
(b) has applied for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances;
(c) is a protected person; or
(d) is, where prescribed by the regulations, the spouse, common-law partner, child or other family member of a foreign national referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Marginal note:
Financial reasons
39 A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made.
Marginal note:
Misrepresentation
40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
(b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
(c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or
(d) on ceasing to be a citizen under
(i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,
(ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or
(iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.
Non-compliance with Act
41 A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and
(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2) or section 28.
Marginal note:
Inadmissible family member
42 (1) A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member if
(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances, their non-accompanying family member is inadmissible; or
(b) they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.
All of these grounds for inadmissibility seem pretty important, don’t they? Canadians rightfully don’t want foreigners involved in criminal activity; serious criminal activity; organized crime; human rights violations; espionage; terrorism; or plain old non-compliance to be in Canada. It is very reasonable.
However, that is happening, and happening on a grand scale. Funny how Global News omits all of this, despite reading the same Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. It’s almost as if they selectively chose not to address the much bigger issue.
7. About Those “Inadmissibles” We Let In
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
Of course, there are other categories for denial of entry, but they didn’t fit into the chart. Pretty disturbing though, just how many “inadmissibles” are actually allowed into Canada.
This is just a bit larger than the 3,000 people Global News wrote about. While it’s appreciated that they do cover defects in Canadian laws and immigration, it seems that they went out of their way to avoid talking about a much, MUCH bigger one.
8. Missing The Bigger Picture
It was definitely nice to see the media using those Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration to help share some detail with the public. It is true that since September 2010, 3000 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway, under Rule 25.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Where this falls flat, however, is that Global News leaves out that 186,000 people were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of the IRPA. Yes, the media ignored a similar problem that was 62 times the size as the one they pointed out. That information was in the same reports, in fact, on the same pages sometimes, so it wasn’t difficult to find.
Whether accidental or intentional, this is not good journalism.
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.
It is a commonly repeated globalist talking point that Canada’s population is falling, and that more immigration is needed to keep it going.
While it is true that EUROPEANS are not having enough children to replace themselves, that is not true of other groups, or of Canada in general. In fact, Canada’s population is naturally growing bigger. That is to say, it is increasing at a few hundred people per day, even when deaths are factored in.
People pushing for more and more immigration never really give a satisfactory answer as to WHY it is needed. Claims of funding pensions and economic growth are often cited, but that seems to be a poor long term decision if the culture and makeup of the nation fundamentally breaks down.
Of course the real goal is to replace the (European) stock, culture and heritage. And while those in charge aren’t (yet) killing those European descent outright, mass migration dilutes the voting strength and leads to electoral changes.
Worth noting however, a significant portion of these births likely are the result of birth tourism. Still we should focus on Canadian births instead of immigration.
4. Canadian Births, Deaths, Since 1991
Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366
Year
Birth
Deaths
Diff
Day
1991
402,533
195,569
206,964
567
1992
398,643
196,535
202,108
552
1993
388,394
204,912
183,482
503
1994
385,114
207,077
178,037
488
1995
378,016
210,733
167,283
458
1996
366,200
212,880
153,320
419
1997
348,598
215,669
132,929
364
1998
342,418
218,091
124,327
341
1999
337,249
219,530
117,719
323
2000
327,882
218,062
109,820
300
2001
333,744
219,538
114,206
313
2002
328,802
223,603
105,199
288
2003
335,202
226,169
109,033
299
2004
337,072
226,584
110,488
302
2005
342,176
230,132
112,044
307
2006
354,617
228,079
126,538
347
2007
367,864
235,217
132,647
363
2008
377,886
238,617
139,269
381
2009
380,863
238,418
142,445
390
2010
377,213
240,075
137,138
376
2011
377,636
243,511
134,125
367
2012
381,869
246,596
135,273
370
2013
380,323
252,338
127,985
350
2014
384,100
258,821
125,279
343
2015
382,392
264,333
118,059
323
2016
383,102
267,213
115,889
318
2017
379,450
276,689
102,761
281
2018
375,390
283,706
91,684
251
In every single year there are hundreds more births per day than there are deaths. While the averages do vary, the result is still overall growth.
Although in the available data, it has dropped form 567 per day to 251 per day at the ends, the reality is that Canada’s population is naturally getting bigger. No immigration is needed for this growth to happen.
5. More Canadian Children, Less Abortion
Canadian women abort about 100,000 babies per year. If those children had actually been allowed to live, the growth in Canada would be nearly double what it naturally is. All that is required is to view and treat them as people, instead of as inconveniences.
Also, is growth really necessary? Sometimes overcrowded areas would benefit from less children. But that it rarely discussed. While Canadians are told the population is dropping, that is not the case, at least not overall.
Immigration is not needed to grow Canada’s population.
Yet it is pushed on us.
Less Canadian children.
Abort Canadian babies.
Birthrates decline.
Import a replacement population.
Connect the dots.
(2018: Objective 20 of UN Global Migration Compact)
(2016: Paragraph 57 of NY Declaration)
(2015: Goal 10.7 of UN Agenda 2030)
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.
Western “leaders” frequently tell people how immigration is a boon to the economy, and that it will bring all sorts of wealth in.
Not withstanding: culture clash, ethnic tensions, increased competition for jobs, added costs when social services factored in, overcrowding, demographic replacement, there is the topic of remittances. Remittances are funds that are sent across borders, typically to family members.
Mass migration enthusiasts routinely claim that people temporarily come to a nation to work, and few intend to stay. Notwithstanding the truth that many (if not most) don’t, does it make it okay if it’s true? How does it enrich a nation when huge sums of money are sent out of the country? How does draining the wealth make it more prosperous?
How big exactly is the issue of remittances? Let’s take a dive into the hard data. Yes, the topic was addressed in this review, but why not dig deeper?
4. Global Migration Compact, Objective 20, 22
OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
36. We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.
The UN Global Migration Compact specifically lists making remittances easier and cheaper. Why? To send money back to families. This means that instead of money circulating the host country, much of it will be sent away. Don’t worry, it will get worse.
OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
38. We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country.
Social benefits such as pensions will be able to be transferred from one nation to another. This means countries like Canada will be forced to pay for pensions and such to people that have not contributed to the country over the years. Now, can these paid out social benefits be turned around and sent back to family members in the form of remittances?
How does the first world benefit from this treaty? How does importing people and forcing locals to face foreign competition help? How does driving down the wages help locals? How does sending that money overseas help the local economy?
It doesn’t. But that’s what Canada has been signed up for. All without a democratic mandate of course. Rather than stopping, or even slowing the money leaving Western nations, this agreement aims to make it easier and cheaper.
5. New York Declaration, Para 57
57. We will consider facilitating opportunities for safe, orderly and regular migration, including, as appropriate, employment creation, labour mobility at all skills levels, circular migration, family reunification and education-related opportunities. We will pay particular attention to the application of minimum labour standards for migrant workers regardless of their status, as well as to recruitment and other migration-related costs, remittance flows, transfers of skills and knowledge and the creation of employment opportunities for young people.
In addition to promoting mass migration and cheaper remittances, is the New York Declaration also trying to normalize people working illegally?
6. SDA Agenda 2030, Goal 10.7
10.7 Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies
10.a Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements
10.b Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes
10.c By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent
Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people? Doesn’t that sound a lot like the UN Global Migration Compact? It does, but the same language is written into Agenda 2030 as well. This was signed in September 2015 by Stephen Harper, who calls himself a conservative.
One specific goal is to have the fees for remittances reduced to less than 3%. Why? Because with the mass migration plans that our “leaders” have, replacing the population is only going to continue. So sending money away should be easier and cheaper.
And despite all the talk about these workers being “temporary”, they are not. The bulk of them are not going to leave.
7. World Bank Review: 2016 Remittances
Recently, several high-income countries that are host to many migrants are considering taxation of outward remittances, in part to raise revenue, and in part to discourage undocumented migrants. The list of countries where such taxes are being considered includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates. However, taxes on remittances are difficult to administer and likely to drive the flows underground.
De-risking has the potential to reverse the progress made in reducing remittance costs and adversely impacts broader development objectives. Moreover, the disappearance of regulated and legal remittance providers could divert flows toward informal channels, which in turn could increase anti-money laundering/countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) risks. In August 2016, the U.S. Treasury and federal banking agencies (including the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) released a factsheet aimed at clarifying the AML/CFT regulations and sanctions related to correspondent banking. According to the factsheet, the agencies “do not utilize a zero tolerance philosophy.”
Despite the clarification from the U.S. Treasury and federal banking agencies, global banks have begun to exit or reduce their exposure to the retail remittance business. The banks include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Banamex USA in the United States; National Australia Bank, Westpac Group, and ANZ in Australia; Barclays and HSBC in the United Kingdom; and BBVA in Spain.
The World Bank discusses things that are being considered, such as formally taxing remittances being sent out of the country.
Also keep in mind, this is April 2017, and the New York Declaration has already been signed. The UN Global Migration Compact is to be signed in 2018, and it is expected to drive remittances much higher. Mass migration will be more easily available, so the assumption makes sense.
8. Ratha: World Bank, Remittances
Ratha comments that there is steady year after year growth in the scale of remittances being sent across borders. Of course, the growth varies on region, but in the data presented it is 6-12% consistently.
India, China, Mexico and the Philippines are listed as receiving the highest amount of remittances in 2018. Interestingly, China, India and Philippines are the top 3 sources of immigration in Canada. Mexico being on that list is probably explained by massive immigration (both legal and illegal) into the United States.
Yes, Goal 10(7)(c) of Agenda 2030 is to reduce the fees for remittances to under 3%. Seems like the people involved are only expecting it to keep increasing.
9. Remittance Estimates: World Bank
Let’s take a look at the money flowing in and out of the developed/developing world. One important disclaimer to add: although the World Bank estimates money going in and out of the 1st and 3rd World nations, it doesn’t specify to what degree they cross over, or are just transferred within.
It is fair to estimate, however, that the vast majority of the funds going to the 3rd World are transfers from the 1st. Also, it’s fair to estimate that the majority of fund the 1st World receives are from other 1st world nations.
Year
Total ($B)
To 1st World
To 3rd World
Diff.
2013
$581B
$177B
$404B
$227B
2014
$592B
$162B
$430B
$268B
2015
$582B
$142B
$440B
$298B
2016
$573B
$144B
$429B
$285B
2017
$613B
$147B
$466B
$319B
2018
$689B
$161B
$528B
$367B
Sources For The Chart CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.
Hundreds of billions of dollars a year flow annually to the developing world, the majority of it from the Western World. When politicians talk about the financial benefits of immigration, is this what they mean? The pouring of money out of their countries?
10. Pew Research: $150B in 2017 (USA)
Pew Research, among many other things, tracks and estimates remittances sent back. The numbers are staggering, particularly in the U.S. An estimated $150 billion was sent outside the country in the year 2017.
Just think. All that money could have funded Donald Trump’s border wall. In fact, it would fund it several times over. Let’s take a look
Rank
Nation
Est. ($ Billions)
1
Mexico
30.019
2
China
16.141
3
India
11.714
4
Philippines
11.099
5
Vietnam
7.735
6
Guatemala
7.725
7
Nigeria
6.191
8
El Salvador
4.611
9
Dominican Republic
4.594
10
Honduras
3.769
This table only covers the top destinations for the remittances out of the U.S., but the point should be obvious. It doesn’t really stimulate the “American” economy when so much money is being sent overseas. It disproves (to a large degree) that there is any real economic benefit to this immigration system.
Also worth noting is that large amounts of foreign “temporary” labour has the added effect of driving down wages, as more people will be competing for the same job. This creates an employer’s market. And as we all know, these aren’t really “temporary” workers. Most will try to stay.
True, this focuses on the U.S. situation, but it’s worth covering, as Canada faces the same issues that our Southern neighbours do.
To address the obvious: many temporary workers (and students) will remain in Canada even after their visa is up. Transitioning to permanent resident is usually an option. But even if they don’t, money is still being sent out of the country. Take a look at how many “temporary” workers we have in the TFWP and the International Mobility Program.
Temporary Foreign Worker Program
Report Year
Numbers
2004
82,151
2005
90,668
2006
99,146
2007
112,658
2008
165,198
2009
192,519
2010
178,478
2011
182,276
2012
190,842
2013
213,573
2014
221,310
2015
95,086
2016
73,016
2017
78,402
2018
78,788
International Mobility Program
Report Year
Numbers
2004
included
2005
included
2006
included
2007
included
2008
included
2009
included
2010
included
2011
included
2012
included
2013
included
2014
included
2015
197,924
2016
175,967
2017
207,829
2018
224,033
Also, it’s worth noting that students are allowed to work up to 20 hours/week, even while school is in session. Many (though not all) do. And Canada has certainly experienced an uptick in workers in recent years.
Report Year
Numbers
2004
61,293
2005
56,536
2006
57,476
2007
61,703
2008
64,636
2009
79,509
2010
85,140
2011
96,157
2012
98,383
2013
104,810
2014
111,865
2015
127,698
2016
219,143
2017
265,111
2018
317,328
Data for the tables, is in this link. It includes archived listings for the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration from 2004 to 2018.
And no, not everyone coming to Canada will be sending money back. However, the temptation is there for anyone with family members left behind.
12. Remittances Directly Tied To Immigration
The World Bank is candid in making the connection between immigration and remittances. It is mainly by people who have gone to another country to world, and then send money back for family members.
While this is certainly noble, the money leaving the host nation is money that is not being spent in the host economy. It is money disappearing.
True, the person earning the money does have the right to spend it. However, how does that help the host country, when large sums of money are simply transferred out, year after year? It is a massive drain which could otherwise be spent here.
(UN: Mark Carney to become Special Envoy for Climate Action & Finance, once he leaves post at Bank of England)
(Notice, from COP25 in Madrid, Spain)
(Carney: businesses ignoring climate change will go bankrupt)
(Bank for International Settlements)
(Chicago Climate Exchange)
1. Context For This Piece
Mark Carney is the current head of the Bank of England, and is the former head of the Bank of Canada. After he leave the BoE, he will take on a UN position as the Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.
Carney will supposedly be working for a token $1/year, which means that money is not the motivation. Rather it is ideological. Okay, so why is he doing this? And why would the UN go an seek out a head of 2 Western central banks? Is there to become a “central bank” of carbon credits and emissions trading? Will nations who don’t cut Carbon Dioxide be hit with extra bank fees, or have their assets frozen or seized?
The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is sort of a central bank for central banks. Debt, credit, interest and monetary policy all come from the BIS. It’s an illusion that individual nations are sovereign. In fact, the Rothchild Family controls the banking for most nations on the planet. So it is extremely powerful. Now, why would a head of 2 central banks (England and Canada) be put in charge of climate action and finance?
Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, but a fundamental part of photosynthesis and respiration. An 8th grade science text book would confirm that. So the “science” is bogus, especially when the issue of solar activity is repeatedly ignored.
Also included is Chicago Climate exchange, which Wikipedia describes as “North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil”.
If these “carbon credits” are being bought, sold and traded just as another commodity, then one has to ask the obvious question: how much of this is about the environment, and how much is just a money-making gimmick?
2. Mark Carney, UN Climate Action/Finance
On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.
We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020
Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.
Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.
It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?
Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.
3. Announcement From COP25 In Madrid
The UN Secretary-General has outlined the “increased ambition and commitment” that the world needs from governments during the coming days of the COP25 UN climate change conference which opens in Madrid on Monday, calling for “accountability, responsibility and leadership” to end the global climate crisis.
The “social dimension” of climate change must also be paramount, so that national commitments include “a just transition for people whose jobs and livelihoods are affected as we move from the grey to the green economy.”
Mr. Guterres said at least $100 billion dollars must be made available to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation and to take into account their “legitimate expectations to have the resources necessary to build resilience and for disaster response and recovery.”
A statement from the Spokespersons’ office said his tasks would include “building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.”
The Bank of England Governor has held numerous positions in finance in both the private and public sectors and will become a member of UN staff at the point at which he ceases to work for the Bank. He also served, from 2011 to 2018, as Chair of the Financial Stability Board and Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008-2013.
“The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance”, as the UN looks to next year’s 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), due to take place in Glasgow, Scotland.
COP25 in Madrid. Pardon the sarcasm, but these questions need to be asked: if climate change is such a pressing matter, why have they not accomplished their goals in 25 annual conferences? Why do we finish one conference and immediately schedule another? If burning fossil fuels is so harmful, then why do tens of thousands of people have to fly across the world? Why not video conference?
Guterres admits that at least $100 billion needs to be raised. Okay, very expensive agenda.
It’s also admitted that a lot of this money won’t be used for “climate change”. Instead, it will be used to pay off people whose livelihoods have been destroyed.
Carney is a former central bank head (UK and Canada), Is he in this role to remake the climate change scam this way? Is the UN going to establish a sort of “UN central bank” to regulate and control carbon taxes?
LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.
“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.
Companies and industries that are not moving towards zero-carbon emissions will be punished by investors and go bankrupt, the governor of the Bank of England has warned.
Mark Carney also told the Guardian it was possible that the global transition needed to tackle the climate crisis could result in an abrupt financial collapse. He said the longer action to reverse emissions was delayed, the more the risk of collapse would grow.
LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.
“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.
There are many more articles on the subject, but the above describes it bluntly. Carney, in his new role, is making it clear that businesses that don’t adapt will go bankrupt. In fairness, this could simply be grandstanding to make headlines. However, Carney could actually be sincere about it.
Now, this “could” be interpreted to mean that they will simply not be able to keep up with changing conditions. But a more likely meaning is that companies who do not play along will be shut down — one way or another.
If this is the latter case, then this is nothing more than an elaborate protection racket. Play along, pay your fees, jump through the hoops, etc… Or else, you won’t be doing business here (or anywhere) anymore. More sophisticated than mafia thugs who simply burn down your business, but the basic idea is much the same.
5. A New Form Of Central Banking?
For background information, please review the CENTRAL BANKING articles posted previously on this site. Lots of important detail is given in these other postings.
An interesting article by Christians For Truth suggests that Rothschilds’ central banking cartel is behind the move to force climate action. It quotes the Guardian article and then concludes:
The Rothschilds founded the Bank of England right after the Jews were readmitted to England after having been expelled for 300 years by King Edward I for usury and ritual murder. The BoE was the first central bank to issue money as unpayable debt, the world’s greatest Ponzi Scheme, and it has been the model of all central banks, including the Federal Reserve, since then.
And if you want to understand why the global warming or “climate change” propaganda is pushed 24/7 by the jewish-controlled media, now you know: the Rothschilds are using it as a way of keeping their ever-expanding Ponzi Scheme afloat, and they clearly intend to threaten and punish any businesses that won’t play ball.
While it seems easy to dismiss the article as conspiracy theory nonsense, it is worth a look. Does the Bank for International Settlements engage in this climate finance agenda? Are they getting in on the United Nations’ climate change scam?
And absolutely, BIS does involve itself in the climate change scam. A quick search of “climate finance” yields 1276 results. Search “climate finance Mark Carney” and 76 hits comes up. So it is not at all a conspiracy theory to see cooperation between the banking cartel and the climate cartel. It looks like they are cooperating to screw us over.
The above is just a small sample of what is on the Bank for International Settlements’ website. Again, just searching “climate finance” gets 1276 hits. So they are very active on this topic, and have been for years. It’s not at all a stretch to think that the BIS and the UN will collaborate to control Carbon taxes, and climate finance.
Of course, it’s not clear — yet — how exactly the BIS will be involved in running this scheme. But it’s disturbing, putting one of their operatives at head of the UN “climate finance action”.
6. Chicago Climate Exchange
We started out in 2000 with the idea of transforming the energy markets by creating an electronic marketplace that removed barriers and drove transparency and access.
By staying close to customers, we saw the demand for the efficiency that technology brings and expanded our electronic trading platform into new markets. At the same time we understood that along with liquidity, trust and integrity are central to the effective operation of markets and began investing to build and acquire clearing houses.
As our electronic markets and demand for clearing grew, access to new sources of information became central to our customers and data has increasingly become the lifeblood of markets. We saw this evolution and consistently we advanced our capabilities, building a data business which is complementary to every part of our solution.
Despite the word salad this is an organization that tries to effectively run a climate bond trading market. Setting aside the bogus science, this is an industry that can only survive as long as people keep buying into the scam. Sooner or later, it will collapse.
If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.
It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.
This Canada Free Press article, see archive, gives a damning critique of the operation. It also raises point that the biggest shareholder was Goldman Sachs. This is important as Mark Carney worked for Goldman Sachs, and in fact was their managing director of investment banking.
Read the Britannia piece for more information on Carney’s background, but the conflict of interest here is plainly visible.
(1) Carney was a Director for Goldman Sachs.
(2) Goldman Sachs was largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange.
(3) CCE’s existence was based on the climate bonds industry.
(4) Carney is former head of Bank of Canada.
(5) Carney is current head of Bank of England.
(6) Carney used positions at BoC and BoE to promote climate change agenda
(7) Carney promotes climate change with Bank for International Settlements.
(8) Carney gets a UN post to push climate finance agenda.
Mark Carney has been going on about the dangers of climate change for years. Now, is he doing so as a concerned head of the Bank of Canada or Bank of England? Or is he doing so as a Director for Goldman Sachs, and part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange? Pretty hard to tell, isn’t it?
7. Where Does This Lead?
Hard to say for sure. But it looks like the banking cartel and the climate change cartel are effectively working together. Perhaps this is just a way of centralizing and controlling the scheme more efficiently.
However, it is nonsense to think that paying taxes to the UN, or the Bank for International Settlements (or anyone) will make the climate better. It is a money grab, and junk science. Again, Carbon Dioxide, the most commonly cited “greenhouse gas”, is not pollution. It is necessary in order to sustain life.
Even if these taxes were to be avoided, the only way to do so would be to collapse the economy, and get rid of most (or all) of industrialization. If that is the goal, then it’s one that will effectively end Western civilization.
(It’s a constantly repeated lie that temporary workers are only temporary. They will return home once their visas expire, and not become permanent residents.)
(It’s also a lie that students will return home. In most cases, they are eligible for the PGWP, and many transition directly to permanent residents.)
(International Mobility Program, essentially an extension of TFWP, but no labour shortages actually are required. Open work permits)
(If immigration grows our economy, then why is so much money being sent out of the country? Shouldn’t that money be spent here?)
(Program launched in July: Domestic violence ==> PR-Path)
(CANZUK, possibly the biggest open borders and globalist free trade deal in history, is official CPC policy.)
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. Context For This Article
As has been reported many times on this site, immigration is nowhere near what is reported in the media. Specifically, when students and so-called “temporary” workers are factored in, it is double or triple what we are lead to believe.
Why does this matter? For a number of reasons. First, it is misleading to omit that these groups are eligible for permanent resident status. That means, most can and will remain in Canada much, MUCH longer than originally stated. It artificially lowballs the immigration rate. Yes, not everyone stays, but many will, especially if they have built roots here.
Second, most people head to the larger cities, which strain to accommodate more and more people. This results in overburdened social services, congestion, and overcrowding. And contrary to conservatives and libertarians, there is a huge financial cost to these influxes.
Third, large scale mass migration has the effect of drastically changing the culture, the societal makeup, demographics (yes, race) and the voting patterns in elections. For example, importing large numbers of people who want hate speech laws, strong gun control, and socialist rule means that voting starts trending that way. Problem is, that no one ever voted to have their societies so changed.
Fourth, it brings incompatible cultures together, again, with no mandate from the host population. Islamic Hijrah (conquest by immigration) is the most obvious, but not the only one. There’s also Chinese expansion, Sikh nationalists, and replaying of ethnic conflicts, just to name a few.
In short, mass migration completely remakes a nation, and a lot of it in negative ways. Problem is (again), no one voted for it. And repeatedly lying to minimize the scale of it only serves to make things worse.
Note: From the 2004 to 2018 reports (which cover 2003-2017) we can take the “temporary” migration data as well. For this, “temporary” refers to:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
(b) International Mobility Program;
(c) Student Visas
Here’s a snapshot of these “temporary” programs from the years 2015 to 2017. Source is the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.
Year
TFW
Int Mobility
Student
2015
73,016
175,967
218,147
2016
78,402
207,829
265,111
2017
78,788
224,033
317,328
Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)
Report Year
Stated Imm
Temporary
Actual Imm
2004
221,352
143,444
364,796
2005
235,824
147,204
383,028
2006
262,236
156,622
418,858
2007
251,649
174,361
426,010
2008
236,758
229,834
466,592
2009
247,243
272,028
519,271
2010
252,179
263,618
515,797
2011
280,681
278,433
559,114
2012
248,748
289,225
537,973
2013
257,887
318,383
576,270
2014
258,953
333,175
592,128
2015
260,404
420,708
681,112
2016
271,845
468,126
739,971
2017
296,346
551,342
847,688
2018
331,226
620,149
951,375
The public is (wrongly) told that the annual averages were about 250K during the Harper years (2006 to 2015) and creeping up to 300 under Trudeau, and expected to hit about 350K in a few years. Big problem is that these claims deliberately leave out the pathway-to-PR students and “temporary” workers.
While these programs are touted as “temporary” this is extremely misleading, as an awful lot of people from all streams will remain in Canada. Either they will transition to permanent residents, or remain in some other capacity.
4. Surge In Student Visas
(UBC Promoting post-graduate options to students)
(University of Calgary and options for foreign students.
(University of Regina promoting permanent residence)
CLICK HERE, for Provincial Nominee Seminar at UBC. CLICK HERE, for permanent resident information from UCalgary. CLICK HERE, for URegina on the Sask Immigrant Nominee Program.
The above are just the first 3 that I checked out. In fact, in seems that ALL colleges and universities are offering guidance for their international students on how to remain in Canada after they graduate.
But why would they do that? The powers that be repeatedly assure us that these students are in the country temporarily, and that they will return home afterwards. It’s almost as if these student visas were a form of backdoor immigration.
Report Year
Numbers
2004
61,293
2005
56,536
2006
57,476
2007
61,703
2008
64,636
2009
79,509
2010
85,140
2011
96,157
2012
98,383
2013
104,810
2014
111,865
2015
127,698
2016
219,143
2017
265,111
2018
317,328
In 2003, Canada issued 60,000 student visas (rounded down) and in 2017 issued 315,000 student visas (again, rounded down). This is more than 5 times the amount, in just a 15 year period.
Sources are the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. They are listed in Section #3. Now, not everyone will stay in Canada after they are done school. But many will, and our Government makes that very easy.
5. Surge In “Temporary” Workers
Note: in 2014 there was a public scandal regarding the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Word got out as to just how wide spread the program was, and just how many people were being “imported” into jobs that Canadians could do, but who had to be paid more.
The “solution”, if you can call it that, was to break up the TFWP into 2 categories: one where a Labour Market Impact Assessment was needed (LIMA), and one that was not (an open work permit).
In this case, the TFWP required the LIMA, whereas the previously existing International Mobility Program was scaled up (no LIMA required). To summarize, rather than fix the underlying problem, the Government decided to split up the program and call it fixed.
Temporary Foreign Worker Program
Report Year
Numbers
2004
82,151
2005
90,668
2006
99,146
2007
112,658
2008
165,198
2009
192,519
2010
178,478
2011
182,276
2012
190,842
2013
213,573
2014
221,310
2015
95,086
2016
73,016
2017
78,402
2018
78,788
International Mobility Program
Report Year
Numbers
2004
included
2005
included
2006
included
2007
included
2008
included
2009
included
2010
included
2011
included
2012
included
2013
included
2014
included
2015
197,924
2016
175,967
2017
207,829
2018
224,033
Split Up Of TFWP
To offer greater clarity and transparency, the current TFWP is being reorganized and new International Mobility Programs (IMPs) are being created. The TFWP will now refer to those streams under which foreign workers enter Canada at the request of employers following approval through a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The new IMPs will incorporate those streams in which foreign nationals are not subject to an LMIA, and whose primary objective is to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural national interest, rather than filling particular jobs. These reorganized programs will improve accountability, with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) being the lead department for the TFWP, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the lead department for the IMPs. In addition, ESDC will publicly post data on the number of positions for temporary foreign workers approved through the TFWP on a quarterly basis, and will post the names of corporations that receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers through LMIAs.
For some context, consider that in 2003, about 80,000 temporary workers were admitted into Canada. That contrasts with over 300,000 in 2017 (when TFWP and IMP both factored in). That is nearly 4 times the amount in just 15 years.
CPC Supports Temp-To-PR Pipeline
The Conservative Party of Canada supports both: creating new immigration pilot programs, and transitioning temporary workers into permanent residents. That is listed in Article 139 of their Policy Declaration (found under Governing Documents)
Also worth noting that CANZUK is official CPC policy as well, Article 152 of their Policy Declaration. CANZUK, when fully implemented would allow free trade and free travel between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Effectively, it would erase the borders between those nations. Aside from the obvious problems, other nations like India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Commonwealth could potentially join. Would all of those “temporary” people be PR eligible as well?
To be fair, the People’s Party of Canada, which claims to “open the Overton window” on immigration, never addresses any of the following:
(a) True scale of mass migration;
(b) Temps/Students transitioning to PR;
(c) Importing the 3rd World;
(d) Rapid demographic change;
(e) Changes in voting trends, less conservatism;
(f) CANZUK being implemented
It would be nice if these Annual Reports to Parliament were more detailed in which programs/streams people were transitioning into permanent residents. It would also help for more information on how many people remain in the country but don’t become citizens. Alas, such useful data is lacking.
To address the elephant in the room: not all of the temporary workers do stay in Canada. Similarly, not all students stay in Canada after they graduate. But an awful lot do. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government doesn’t easily provide that information, so it has to be pieced together.
6. Remittances Sent Back Home
The Bank estimates that officially recorded annual remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries reached $529 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.6 percent over the previous record high of $483 billion in 2017. Global remittances, which include flows to high-income countries, reached $689 billion in 2018, up from $633 billion in 2017.
Among countries, the top remittance recipients were India with $79 billion, followed by China ($67 billion), Mexico ($36 billion), the Philippines ($34 billion), and Egypt ($29 billion).
The Brief also reports progress toward the SDG target of reducing the recruitment costs paid by migrant workers, which tend to be high, especially for lower-skilled migrants.
The World Bank estimates that $689 billion was sent in remittances globally in the year 2018. Globalist politicians repeatedly say that immigration brings wealth to the country, but it seems to be a source of draining it.
Global Remittances In Recent Years
Year
Total ($B)
To 1st World
To 3rd World
Diff.
2013
$581B
$177B
$404B
$227B
2014
$592B
$162B
$430B
$268B
2015
$582B
$142B
$440B
$298B
2016
$573B
$144B
$429B
$285B
2017
$613B
$147B
$466B
$319B
2018
$689B
$161B
$528B
$367B
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017. CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.
Biggest Recipients Of US $ (2018)
Rank
Nation
Est. ($ Billions)
1
Mexico
30.019
2
China
16.141
3
India
11.714
4
Philippines
11.099
5
Vietnam
7.735
6
Guatemala
7.725
7
Nigeria
6.191
8
El Salvador
4.611
9
Dominican Republic
4.594
10
Honduras
3.769
Worth noting that reducing fees for remittances is a goal long held by the UN. It’s as if they expect and promote mass migration to the West.
7. “Inadmissibles” Still Allowed In Canada
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
Using the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration, we can see that almost 199,000 people who were previously deemed “inadmissible to Canada” were still allowed Temporary Residence Permits since 2002. This is being done under Rule 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Global(ist) News recently reported about the 3,000 or so who were allowed in under a 2010 rule change, and Rule 25.1 of IRPA. However, they missed the bigger picture.
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
132,474
20
15
7,014
888
5,206
18
2013
145,589
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
This is correct. People being denied entry for criminal record, serious criminal records, human rights violations, security risks, terrorism, and the like, are still being given Temporary Residence Permits.
For all those who say “come legally” and it’s okay, guess what? These people are being let into Canada legally. It’s the system that’s broken. Virtually anyone can get into Canada, so should we just skip the formality of having a border?
8. Importing The 3rd World
The tables below are composed form data gathered in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament (see Section #3). While this data related to % of people gaining permanent residence, and which countries they originate from, it’s a pretty good indicator of where Canada is importing people from.
(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)
Rank
Country
Percent (%)
#1
China
16.3
#2
India
11.1
#3
Pakistan
5.6
#4
Philippines
5.4
#5
S. Korea
3.2
#6
U.S.
2.7
#7
Iran
2.6
#8
Romania
2.5
#9
U.K. & Colonies
2.4
#10
Sri Lanka
2.0
(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)
Rank
Country
Percent (%)
#1
China
13.2
#2
India
12.2
#3
Philippines
7.0
#4
Pakistan
4.9
#5
U.S.A.
4.3
#6
Iran
2.8
#7
U.K.
2.6
#8
S. Korea
2.5
#9
Colombia
2.3
#10
France
2.0
(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)
Rank
Country
Percent (%)
#1
China
12
#2
Philippines
11
#3
India
10
#4
U.S.A
4
#5
U.K. & Colonies
4
#6
France
3
#7
Pakistan
2
#8
Iran
2
#9
S. Korea
2
#10
Morocco
2
(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)
Rank
Country
Percent (%)
#1
China
12.8
#2
Philippines
12.7
#3
India
11.2
#4
Pakistan
3.9
#5
U.S.A
3.7
#6
France
3.2
#7
Iran
2.5
#8
U.K. & Colonies
2.5
#9
Haiti
2.2
#10
S. Korea
2.1
(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)
Rank
Country
Percent (%)
#1
Philippines
18.7
#2
India
14.5
#3
China
7.2
#4
Iran
4.3
#5
Pakistan
4.2
#6
Syria
3.6
#7
U.S.A.
3.0
#8
France
2.0
#9
U.K. & Colonies
2.0
#10
Nigeria
2.0
Note: Of the top 10 countries of origin, only 3 are from European, Western nations (France, the U.S., and the U.K. & Colonies). However, ever U.K. & Colonies is suspect, as it contains people from outside the U.K.
Who would have thought that mass migration of the 3rd World would lead to Canada becoming the 3rd World? This connection is obviously so difficult to make.
This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.
(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)
Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran
might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern.
To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.
Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?
It’s a commonly repeated myth that the Canadian population is declining. In fact, it is growing by about an average of 300 people per day, and has for several years. That being said, this is not at the same across groups. Couples European descent have an average of about 1.5 children each, far below the replacement rate.
Truth is demographic replacement is already taking place, even without any immigration. And that leads to the next segment: a groups that WANTS to breed, in order to achieve its goal of world domination.
11. Muslims Taking Over The World
(Muslims man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point)
This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.
Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.
More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.
Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).
The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.
He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.
Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.
12. UN Supports Replacement, White Genocide
This topic was covered previously, but time for a trip down memory lane. The United Nations has been holding “population conferences” since the 1950s. Interestingly, the solution is always the same: more migration from the 3rd World. Not higher birth rates. Not a decline may be okay. Not “piss off” as a response. More mass migration.
(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)
(UN Population Division still hard at work)
UN webpages worth a read CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website. CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies. CLICK HERE, for participant contact info. CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline. CLICK HERE, for various conferences. CLICK HERE, for the “About” page. CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division. CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.
UN Global Migration Group
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Regional Commissions
United Nations University (UNU)
World Bank
World Health Organization (WHO)
Not much to add to this abomination, but it is plain and obvious that the replacement agenda is going on at a global level, and has been for decades.
Consider this: the UN was formed at the end of the Second World War in 1945. Less than a decade later, it is already holding population conferences. They continue even now.
13. Multiculturalism Is Genocide
This may seem strange, but consider the following. Forcibly remaking the population without their consent amounts to genocide, as defined by the United Nations. Check out the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing 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.
Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
14. Where To Go From Here
A moratorium on immigration is the only sensible answer. This “multiculti” experiment is a total failure, and it’s time to put a stop to it. Illegals need to be deported.
Stop Islamic immigration. Permanently. Deport whoever can be legally deported, and ban political Islam. Mosques need to be shutdown wherever possible.
This multicultural push also needs to go. If Canada (or any nation) is to survive, it must be united under one identity.
How did we get to the stage where replacing your population, your culture, language, traditions, and customs is valued as “diversity”? Shouldn’t we preserve what we have?
Put our own people first. Have our own children, more of them, and keep the culture (what’s left of it) intact. Stop sending money away with remittances, stop importing cheap labour, and driving down wages.
It is mind boggling that so-called “conservatives” keep pushing for mass migration from socialist and other left leaning nations. It never seems to dawn on them that importing liberal and socialist voters means that their own base will eventually be replaced. Idiots. But who cares, as long as the cheap labour keeps flowing.
