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.
This table was complied using data from 2004 to 2019 Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. As “Shadow Minister” for Immigration, Rempel would presumably have read these reports.
5. Temporary Workers Getting PR
That is from page 15 of the most recent (2019) Annual Immigration Report to Parliament, which covers the year 2018. It does quite clearly state that temporary workers are transitioning to permanent residents.
The same information is also available from Statistics Canada, although they only seem to estimate the overall rates for students and also temporary workers.
6. Official CPC Policy Is TFW ==> PR
Article 139 of the CPC Policy Declaration is to convert temporary workers to permanent residents where possible. Rempel, as Immigration “Shadow Minister” or “Critic” presumably would have known that.
7. Rempel Supports Cheap Foreign Labour
Consider this for a moment: Michelle Rempel nearly became Immigration Minister. She supports putting Canadians to work in agriculture ONLY if it’s not possible to import a foreign work force. Nice to see a conservative finally being honest about this though.
It’s nice (in some sense) to see Rempel come out and admit that these “temporary” workers are in fact driving wages down, but she seems to support the idea.
8. Rempel Indifferent To Remittances Sent Off
Yes, temporary workers in Canada (and other Western nations) will often send money back home? But it’s no big deal, right? It won’t have any harmful effect? Perhaps not.
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.
Another interesting article on the subject of remittances came from the Vancouver Sun. It echoed the World Bank’s estimate of $24 billion leaving Canada in 2012, but covered other relevant points as well.
ABUSE AND DUBIOUS MOTIVATIONS
Since the migration of one person to another country is often a family decision, many migrants feel guilty and pressured to send money to people, some of whom they fear may misuse it.
.
Most migrants remit in the belief the money will go to food, housing, health care and education. But reports frequently arise about how hard-earned remittance money is misspent, going to big-screen TVs or even drinking binges.
.
In addition, Canadian economist John Hoddinot says many migrants send remittances to their parents, uncles and aunts to “ensure hereditary rights,” meaning they have to do so for the long haul and have no guarantees their goal will be realized.
Conservatives claim that these “temporary” workers will boost the local economy. But how exactly is that the case when billions are sent away annually as remittances? It’s not like Rempel doesn’t know this is happening.
9. Real Effects Of CANZUK
In keeping with conservative mentality that we only need to conserve economic growth, let’s look at CANZUK. It is official CPC policy, addressed in article 152 of the policy declaration. See a previous review of it.
Think about it: CANZUK essentially comprises two elements (a) free trade; and (b) open movement. It also has the potential to expand to include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Commonwealth nations.
(a) In a free trade system, jobs get sent overseas to where things can be made cheaper, which will DECREASE the supply of jobs in Canada.
(b) With open immigration, people can come to Canada freely, which will INCREASE the demand for what jobs remain.
In a situation where you have many more people competing for far fewer jobs, what happens to the wages? They are driven down, and this is a policy conservative politicians in general support.
10. Thoughts On Rempel Tweets
It is absurd that such a high ranking official seems to know nothing about the temp-to-PR pipeline in Canada. Either that, or she knows and just pretends it doesn’t exist.
While it was nice to see the effect on wages addressed, it’s frustrating that Rempel supports the very policies that drive them down in the first place. One would think that ensuring your own citizens have work and livelihoods is more important than importing foreign scabs who will work for less.
The concept of remittances destroys the narrative that economic immigration is beneficial to the local economy. Sending billions out of the country each year does nothing to help.
But this is the difference between conservatives and nationalists. CONSERVATIVES seem to think only in terms of economic growth, stock markets and low prices. NATIONALISTS, on the other hand, care about the well being and stability of their own people. Different priorities.
If you go onto the United Nations main page and type “BILL GATES VACCINE” into the search engine, you will reach an astonishing 53,271 results. Bill Gates and the UN have long collaborated (or is it colluded) in the vaccination business.
Daniel Kress, a representative for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was a panelist on an April 10, 2015 conference with the UN Population Division.
Bill Gates doesn’t believe his children should be vaccinated, yet pushes vaccines throughout the world. This should tell you what he really believes.
However, what is truly mind boggling is the scale which his organization — the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — has been active and financing vaccines elsewhere. The included sections are just a small sample of what he has been up to.
It’s also chilling that the UN Population Division (yes, that is a real thing), holds regular conferences on global population. So-called “experts” are invited to participate and take it in. Representatives from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have attended such events.
Bill Gates has many startling connections. In fact, much of the current crisis all seems to tie back to him and his foundation. Those will be outlined in more detail.
4. April 2015 Population Control Meeting
The Report for this conference is right here. Pretty chilling to see the Gates Foundation on the panel, considering the push vaccines to “save lives”
During the next 15 years, the period covered by the post-2015 United Nations development agenda, demographic trends will have varied and profound implications on our ability to achieve sustainable development, suggesting the potential for large returns to investment in dedicated research on population and development aimed at informing innovative and evidence-based policies.
In order to review gaps and future priorities in demographic research to support the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda, the Population Division convened an expert group meeting on “The post-2015 era: Implications for the global research agenda on population and development” at the United Nations in New York on 10 April 2015. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss research priorities on population and development that merit global attention over the next 15 years. In identifying key knowledge gaps in future demographic trends and their implications for global sustainable development, the results of the meeting were intended to assist the international community in identifying a global, policy-relevant research agenda on population and development.
The meeting featured a keynote address on overarching population and development research priorities, six substantive sessions on changing age structures and their implications for development (one session each on youth and ageing), population and health (one session on global health and one on reproductive health), sustainable urbanization, and international migration and development; and a concluding session. Researchers and academics, experts from Governments and international organizations, and representatives from donors and civil society reflected on the following three discussion questions in each session:
Too long to detail here, but the Gates Foundation was a party to the meeting, and population development and demographic trends were discussed.
Among the contributors were:
Robert Black Professor and Director Institute for International Programs Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, Maryland
Prabhat Jha Director Centre for Global Health Research University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Daniel Kress Deputy Director Integrated Delivery Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington
Lauren Sorkin Platform Director 100 Resilient Cities Rockefeller Foundation New York, New York
Amy Tsui Professor Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore, Maryland.
John Wilmoth Director, Population Division United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs New York, New York
5. Nov 2018 Population Expert Meeting
For some context, the Report Of The Meeting was held on November 1/2, 2018. This was just a month before the UN Global Migration Compact was to be signed, helping to facilitate an estimated 258 million migrants to the West.
Important progress had been achieved in reducing mortality of specific age groups and certain population groups, including children and women. While much had been achieved in curtailing the HIV/AIDS epidemic during the last 25 years, there was a need to analyse inequality in accessing health services for different population groups in order to identify appropriate responses. Universal health coverage, one of the targets of the 2030 agenda, would be instrumental in this respect.
Participants identified the need for reducing inequalities in accessing health and allowing for different approaches within and between countries. “Standing still” was not an option: continuous efforts were required to address the challenges in health and other related fields. Participants called for greater attention to mental health and health impacts from environmental change, issues that would become important challenges in many countries. Participants raised the issue of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) as well as individual risk behaviour and health and discussed the challenges related to old-age labour force participation, such as health status and the competition between young and older workers.
Participants
Invited experts
Mr. David Baxter Baxter Consulting Group San Francisco, USA
Ms. Ann Biddlecom Guttmacher Institute New York, USA
Mr. John Bongaarts Population Council New York, USA Mr. Win Brown Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, USA
Ms. Suzana Cavenaghi Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Mr. Alex Ezeh Drexel University Philadelphia, USA
Mr. Baochang Gu Renmin University of China Beijing, China
Mr. Hongtao Hu Partners in Population and Development Beijing, China
Mr. Prabhat Jha University of Toronto Toronto, Canada
Mr. Benoit Kalasa United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) New York, USA
Ms. Ellen Percy Kraly Colgate University Hamilton, New York, USA
Ms. Nyovani Madise African Institute for Development Policy Lilongwe, Malawi
Mr. Sikufele Mubita Central Statistical Office Lusaka, Zambia
Mr. Fabrizio Natale Joint Research Centre, European Commission Ispra, Italy
Ms. Holly Reed City University of New York (CUNY) New York, USA
Ms. Rachel Snow United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) New York, USA
Ms. Barbara Sow United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) New York, USA
Mr. Joseph Teye University of Ghana Accra, Ghana
Mr. Jorge Bravo United Nations New York, USA
Mr. Bela Hovy United Nations New York, USA
Ms. Vladimira Kantorova United Nations New York, USA
Mr. Victor Gaigbe-Togbe United Nations New York, USA
Mr. Patrick Gerland United Nations New York, USA
Ms. Karoline Schmid United Nations New York, USA
Mr. Frank Swiaczny United Nations New York, USA
Mr. John Wilmoth United Nations New York, USA
Mr. Guangyu Zhang United Nations New York, USA
Getting health care for everyone? Eliminating diseases for these millions of migrants on the move? If only there was someone willing to finance vaccines and vaccine research. Oh wait, there is.
6. Oral Polio Vaccines
The World Health Organization (WHO) spearheads the GPEI, whose ultimate success would mark an early milestone in the Decade of Vaccines, which in turn represents a global vision to provide all children with the vaccines they need.
“No single one of us can bring this long, hard drive over the last hurdle,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said. “But together we can.”
A major GPEI donor is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose co-chair, Bill Gates, also spoke of the significance eradicating polio would have for combating other diseases.
“When we defeat polio, it will motivate us to aim for other great health and development milestones,” he said.
It’s a bit disturbing that the photo for the article shows a child being force fed a pill. This is the 2012 push to get polio vaccines into Nigerian and Afghanistan.
7. Ebola Testing In Guinea
“The VSV-EBOV vaccine was selected for the planned trial based on a framework of parameters developed by the WHO Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee on Ebola Experimental interventions,” it said. “Criteria included acceptable safety profile, induction of appropriate immune responses, including neutralizing antibodies, and the timely availability of sufficient supplies of vaccine doses.
WHO, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and vaccine alliance GAVI are collaborating with the affected countries to develop plans and strategies for large-scale introduction, should this be needed.
WHO said the vaccines’ manufacturers have assured that enough vaccine will be available in the coming months and that financial resources are in place to procure and make vaccines available in the affected countries.
In 2015, an ebola vaccine was pushed onto Guinea. Apparently, initial 2014 clinical testing went well, so they released it to the general public.
8. Pentavalent, 5-in-1 Vaccine
The vaccine, pentavalent, protects against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B, all of which are potentially deadly infections. The doses will be distributed to transitioning countries and those supported by Gavi, the international organization that works with public and private sectors to bring vaccinations to children living in the world’s poorest countries.
Since 2001, a strong collaboration between the Gavi Alliance Partners, which includes UNICEF, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO), has generated great success.
Pentavalent will now be available for about $0.84 a dosage, a price that is also available to governments that self-finance the procurement. The new pricing is expected to generate more than $366 million in savings for donors and governments.
According to Shanelle Hall, Director of UNICEF’s supply and procurement headquarters, as many as 90 per cent of children under the age of five who die from vaccine-preventable diseases are currently living in countries where donors are no longer fully funding vaccination supplies. “For the most vulnerable children in the world, pricing can make a difference between life and death,” she stated in a news release.
In 2016, Pentavalent was released on the public, which was supposed to simultaneously vaccinate against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B.
9. Malaria Vaccine Announced
“The pilot deployment of this first-generation vaccine marks a milestone in the fight against malaria,” stated Dr. Pedro Alonso, Director of the WHO Global Malaria Programme, adding that these pilot projects will provide valuable evidence from real-life settings to make informed decisions on whether to deploy the vaccine on a wide scale.
The vaccine, known as RTS,S, acts globally against the most deadly malaria parasite P. falciparum, very common in Africa. Based on the results from clinical trials, the new vaccine will provide partial protection against malaria in young children.
The vaccine was developed through a partnership between GlaxoSmithKline and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI), with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and from a network of African research centres.
Full funding – $15 million for the malaria vaccine pilots – for the first phase of the programme, has already been received, and an additional commitment of about $37 million from partners is expected to cover the first four years.
“WHO recognizes and commends the leadership and support of all funding agencies and partners who have made this achievement possible,” said Dr Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele, Director of the WHO Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals.
In 2016 it was announced that a malaria vaccine would be released in 2018. Gates and his many partners are listed in the article. Malaria is said to be one of the biggest killers of children.
10. 500M To Be Vaxxed Against Measles
“Eliminating measles would avert half a million deaths, while controlling rubella and Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) would promote health of pregnant woman and the infants they give life to,” said Dr. Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Regional Director for the World Health Organization (WHO) South-East Asia, referring to the ‘big six;’ Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand.
Immunization programme managers of the ‘big six’ countries, along with WHO, UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Vaccine Alliance (GAVI), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Centre for Disease control are deliberating challenges, experiences and lessons learned in immunization in the Region that can be harnessed to eliminate measles and control rubella / congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).
“This dynamism and positive exchange is at the very core of south-south and triangular cooperation,” said Dr. Khetrapal Singh, who announced measles elimination and rubella / CRS control as one of her flagship programme at the start of her tenure in 2014.
The World Health Organization announced in 2018 that vaccinating against measles would prevent at least 500,00 deaths. The research and development is funded by the usual players, including the Gates Foundation.
These 5 examples shown are just a sample of what the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is involved with. There are many more examples.
11. GAVI: Global Vaccine Alliance
GAVI’s founding partners are:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
UNICEF
World Health Organization
World Bank
12. Who’s Actually Funding GAVI?
Gates Foundation Contributions To GAVI
As a founding partner of Gavi, the Gates Foundation has brought international attention to the cause of immunisation and has made several commitments to Gavi, totalling USD 4.1 billion to-date. In 2000, the foundation made an initial USD 750 million commitment to the Vaccine Fund, which was catalytic in bringing other donors to support vaccine delivery and creating Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
In February 2007, the foundation committed USD 50 million to launch the first AMC to expedite the development and availability of pneumococcal vaccines. In June 2011, the Gates Foundation committed over USD 1 billion to Gavi over the period 2011–2015; of this commitment, USD 50 million was reserved for the Gavi Matching Fund. An additional, USD 250 million of challenge grant moneys were pledged to match additional funds raised earlier by other donors.
In June 2014 the Gates Foundation committed an additional USD 241 million to Gavi towards its complementary role on polio eradication including support for IPV over the period 2015–2018. This is complementing GPEI’s work on strengthening routine immunisation and introducing inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) in Gavi-supported countries.
At the Berlin Pledging Conference 2015, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced USD 1.55 billion for Gavi’s next 2016–2020 strategic period.
Mastercard is a technology company in the global payments industry committed to leading the way toward a World Beyond Cash™. Mastercard is also a business-to-business firm, providing franchise, technology, and advisory services to commercial, non-profit, and public sector customers that then go on to serve their clients. This approach to the last-mile experience allows for the creation of nuanced, localised solutions targeted at the end user. Mastercard has made a bold commitment to financial inclusion—to reach 500 million people previously excluded from financial services by 2020 including 40 million merchants. In making this promise, Mastercard highlighted the importance of public-private partnerships. While ambitious, this goal is not out of scope of the company’s activities. Mastercard has launched large-scale projects in more than 50 countries, bringing more than 300 million previously excluded consumers and merchants into the formal economy in just the last few years.
Mastercard has contributed $3.8 million thus far. The are huge advocates of a cashless society, and “financial inclusion”, which would get everyone into the banking system. Also, see a previous article done on Mastercard and financial inclusion.
ELMA Vaccines Contributions To GAVI
Beginning its grant-investing activities in 2012, the ELMA Vaccines and Immunization Foundation’s mission is to expand vaccine and immunization coverage for children globally.
In 2014, ELMA Vaccines and Immunization Foundation pledged USD 2 million to support urgent supply chain needs at country level to overcome barriers to delivering temperature-sensitive vaccines to remote areas. The pledge is matched by the UK Government through Gavi’s Matching Fund, bringing the total sum to USD 4 million.
In 2018, ELMA partnered with Gavi’s INFUSE Pacesetter, Nexleaf Analytics, to scale up its innovative temperature sensing technology to support the cold chain aiming to increase coverage and vaccine introductions in Tanzania. ELMA pledged USD 1.7 million, which was matched by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through Gavi’s Matching Fund, bringing the total sum to USD 3.4 million.
Of course, there are other partners and donors, but that is just a few.
This is by no means all of GAVI’s contributors. However, it is interesting to note that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is by far the biggest contributor.
13. WHO And Immunization Agenda 2030
Immunization is a global health and development success story, saving millions of lives every year. We now have vaccines to prevent more than 20 life-threatening diseases, helping people of all ages live longer, healthier lives. Immunization is the foundation of the primary health care system and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy. Yet despite tremendous progress, far too many people around the world – including nearly 20 million infants each year – have insufficient access to vaccines. In some countries, progress has stalled or even reversed, and there is a real risk that complacency will undermine past achievements.
With the support of countries and partners, WHO is leading the co-creation of a new global vision and strategy to address these challenges over the next decade, to be endorsed by the World Health Assembly. IA 2030 envisions a world where everyone, everywhere, at every age, fully benefits from vaccines to improve health and well-being.
IA2030 has been developed through a “bottom-up” co-creation process, with close engagement of countries to ensure that the vision, strategic priorities and goals are aligned with country needs. As an adaptive and flexible strategy, the IA2030 framework is designed to be tailored by countries to their local context, and to be revised throughout the decade as new needs and challenges emerge. IA2030 strategic priorities will be further refined in the monitoring and evaluation framework and will include indicators, targets and methods for tracking progress.
IA2030 goals are designed to inspire action for implementation. For countries, this could mean setting country-specific targets and milestones for the decade toward those goals. For regions, this could mean contextualising global goals and setting specific targets and milestones in Regional Vaccination Action Plans. For partner organisations, this could mean aligning organizational strategies and indicators to support the attainment of IA2030 goals.
Yes, immunizing everyone is part of the Agenda 2030. Good to know.
14. ID2020 And Vaccines
Hmmm…. looking at those names: who is (was) the head of Microsoft until very recently? Whose foundation is the largest donor to GAVI? The answer to both, of course, is Bill Gates.
Our Approach to Projects
The ID2020 Alliance provides funding and other forms of material support for high-impact and high-quality digital identity projects that are privacy-protecting, user-centric, and designed for scale, impact, and replicability. Proposals are accepted on a rolling basis at various stages of development. Any individual or organization meeting the required application and evaluation criteria is welcome to submit a proposal.
This is most interesting: a group that wants to advance a digital ID for everyone is largely founded by a man who has an obsession with vaccinating the entire world. If only there was a mutual solution for both problems, such as microchipping everyone.
15. Gates Foundation Huge Donor For W.H.O.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Member profile
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) is a funding organization based in Seattle, Washington USA. Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, this innovative group works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In particular, this foundation focuses on improving people’s health and on giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. The valuable resources shared help empower people for success.
Main activities
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works with organizations around the world that are using innovative methods to improve healthcare. The main mission is to help ensure that advances in health are created and shared with those who need them most.
The three priority areas are to:
Discover new insights to fight serious diseases and other health problems affecting developing countries.
Develop effective and affordable vaccines, medicines, and other health tools.
Deliver proven health solutions to those who need them most.
The foundation’s Global Health Program that accounts for about 50 percent of total spending focuses on 20 diseases. The top five are: diarrheal diseases (including rotavirus), pneumonia, malaria—most deadly to kids—and AIDS and TB, which mostly affect adults.
Links to the health workforce crisis
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports advocacy efforts to build awareness of global health challenges, develop new ways to finance health programs, and improve health data. Studies have shown that improved health is critical to getting a country into the positive cycle of increasing education, stability, and wealth. This is accomplished through the right investments in healthcare, training of qualified medical workers and research for science.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation joined the Alliance in 2007 as a development Partner.
The Gates Foundation has been contributing 50% of the money for 20 diseases. Must given them tremendous influence over how exactly that money is spent.
16. Gates Is Connected To Everything
Bill Gates is like the Kevin Bacon of the eugenics movement: he is connected to everything and everyone. Here are some of the relevant links.
Bill Gates openly supports reducing the population
Bill Gates openly supports vaccines for everyone (except his family)
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation attends UN population conferences
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation finances vaccine research
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the founders of GAVI, the global vaccine alliance
World Health Org largely funded by Gates Foundation
GAVI is a founding partner of ID2020
Microsoft is founding partner of ID2020
Serious question: did Bill Gates cause this coronavirus “pandemic”? Or is he simply a shameless opportunist looking to cash in on the situation?
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.
Demographic changes in the U.S., both from legal “and” illegal immigration are changing voting trends. Specifically, most first generation immigrants vote for Democrats, and by a large margin.
This is not lost on Democrats. The party is pushing for:
(a) More immigration;
(b) More amnesty programs for illegals already here
(c) Voting rights for illegal aliens
(d) Abolishing the Electoral College
(e) Getting felons the right to vote in more states
(f) Getting younger people to vote
(g) Voting without photo I.D.
The reason behind this is not idealistic or moral. The idea is to effectively rig elections by getting more people to vote, if they are part of groups that vote for them by large margins.
As demographics change, voting patterns change. Once solidly conservative states are “turning blue”, as demographics now favour Democrats in more and more places. At one time unthinkable, Virginia turned blue, and Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas and others are close to turning blue.
This issue is important to Canadians because the same thing is happening here. Demographic changes are turning more and more ridings liberal and socialist. It is making conservatism an unelectable ideology. While it is nice to say that demographics don’t matter, the fact is they do.
Look at the recent Canadian election. The Greater Toronto Area is now solidly Liberal, despite Trudeau’s horrible job as Prime Minister. This population change is irreversible, and will never support conservative candidates again.
Interestingly, it was Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney who flooded the GTA from 2006 to 2015, making those ridings uncompetitive. And when the next riding redistributions go ahead, there will be more and more liberal/socialist ridings created.
4. Data From 2018 U.S. Midterms
In U.S. congressional races nationwide, an estimated 69% of Latinos voted for the Democratic candidate and 29% backed the Republican candidate, a more than two-to-one advantage for Democrats, according to National Election Pool exit poll data
Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).
Overall, 41% of voters said whites in the country today are favored over minorities; 19% said that minorities are favored over whites, while 33% said that no group is favored. Attitudes on this question were strongly correlated with vote choice. Among those who said whites are favored in the U.S., 87% voted for Democrats. By contrast, large majorities of those who said minorities are favored (85%) or that no group is favored (69%) voted for Republican candidates.
Among voters who said this was the first midterm in which they voted, 62% favored the Democrat and just 36% supported the Republican.
The data from Pew Research makes it pretty clear: minorities vote by very large margins for Democrats. 90% of blacks, and 70% of Hispanics support them, margins that have remained fairly constant for decades.
Why do Democrats push for more and more immigration? Amnesty for illegals? Voting rights for children? Voting rights restored for felons? Because they want more voters.
Demographics are destiny, and these changes are permanently altering Western nations.
5. Whites To Become A Minority
The Brookings Institute that in 2045, whites will stop being an overall majority in the United States, and will drop below 50% completely. From there the percentage of whites will continue to fall.
Of course, if more amnesties are granted for illegal aliens, that switch could happen a lot sooner than 2045. As stated before, Democrats are pushing for amnesty, as they know the (net) vote addition will go very well in their favour.
New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.7 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations
Why this drastic shift? Well, it could be the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, which changed U.S. immigration laws that favoured Europeans and capped the number. Despite claims that there would be no drastic change in the makeup of the United States, that has proven to be false.
But don’t worry, these changes won’t lead, to people being arrested or fined for hate speech. Oh wait, yes they will.
6. Changes To Lead To Seat Redistribution
High Immigration Causes Political Redistribution.
If immigrants were evenly spread throughout the country, they would have no impact on the distribution of House seats. Historically, immigrants have always been concentrated in some areas, and that is still true today. Of course, immigrants do tend to become more dispersed over time, but it is a very gradual process. In 1990, the top six states of immigrant settlement accounted for 73 percent of the total foreign-born population, while in 2000 these same six states accounted for 69 percent of the total foreign-born population. In 2020, the top six states will account for 63 percent of all immigrants, but only 40 percent of the nation’s total population. Although immigrants will almost certainly continue to move into new parts of the country, for decades to come there will continue to be states with very large immigrant populations, while other states have only a modest number. In 2020, there will still be 11 states with fewer than 100,000 immigrants, while five states will have more than two million.
The redistributive effects of immigration are not just a result of its concentration, but also partly depend on immigrants’ share of the total population. A very large immigrant population, even if it becomes more dispersed, can still have a significant impact on the distribution of House seats and Electoral College votes. As long as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) entering the country remains very high, immigration will continue to redistribute political power in Washington. (While not examined in this report, the same dynamic applies within states, in drawing districts for the state legislatures.)
Representing Non-Citizens in Congress.
Although the political stakes for low-immigration states from continued high levels of immigration are clearly very significant, the related question of creating districts because of the presence of non-citizens is equally important to consider. While there is a consensus that naturalized citizens should be represented in Congress just like any other American, awarding congressional seats to states on the basis of their non-citizen populations raises important questions about political representation. This is especially true when one considers that these districts are created by taking representation away from states comprised of American citizens.
Consider the case of Ohio, the biggest loser from immigration-induced reapportionment. In 2020, there will be 292,000 non-citizens in Ohio, accounting for just 2 percent of the state’s population; California will be home to nearly 4.8 million non-citizens, accounting for 12 percent of the state’s population. Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, serve on juries, or work for the federal government in most cases. Many non-citizens, including foreign students, guest workers, and illegal immigrants also may not make campaign contributions. Thus, it may seem odd that they are “represented” in Congress. This is especially true because the majority of non-citizens in the country are either illegal immigrants or temporary visitors such as foreign students or guest workers. While one can at least argue that legal permanent residents who have not naturalized are entitled to representation in Congress because they are future Americans, illegal aliens and temporary visitors can make no such claim.
It is predicted that a few dozen seats will go towards Democrats in the 2020 election. This is because that immigration and population shifts will result in more seats that Democrats can win. This is about shifting political power.
Why Republicans support mass migration when it continuously dilutes their own base and voting bloc is a bit of a mystery. Is the cheap labour they import really worth it?
7. Canadian Parliament Seat Redistribution
The 2011 Fair Representation Act added 30 seats to the Canadian Parliament, (or about 10%) bringing the total to 338. It gave Ontario 15 more seats, BC 6 more, Alberta and Quebec 3 each. As a result, areas with most growth, such as high immigration, get more political power.
Although the Parliament has a limited number of seats, shifts will continue to mean high concentrations of immigrant communities will gain more power. Consequently, the original beliefs and values of the founding stock will continue to be replaced.
Well, according to this graph from Global News, most ridings with the highest immigrant population tend to vote Liberal.
8. About Those Students, Temp Workers
Not only is there the “official” population replacement going on in Canada, but there is the unofficial replacement as well. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of international students and temporary workers are coming to Canada. As has been covered here repeatedly, there are almost all eligible for some option of remaining in Canada long after their visa runs out.
How will Canada’s electoral map look after the next seat distribution? How many more safe Liberal ridings will there be as a result.
Whites are expected to become a minority in Canada soon. What will elections and voting results look like then?
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’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.
(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)
(UN Population Division still hard at work)
(The UN Global Migration Group)
(Other important replacement migration meetings)
(Agreed outcomes on population)
1. Important Links
Other Canuck Law Articles CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Preventing/Punishing Genocide. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974. CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide. CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”. CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity. CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration. CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.
This should be obvious, but nations should look after their own affairs. It is beyond creepy that the United Nations not only has an interest, in population management, but regularly holds conferences on the subject. Shocking yes, but keep reading. The proof is undeniable.
Furthermore, this is not a one time event. It has been going on for the better part of a century now.
3. Kalergi Plan of the 1920s
This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.
The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.
Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.
4. Implementing Kalergi Via Multiculturalism
Here are some quotes from the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It was designed to prevent groups from committing atrocities against each other, and provide some means for punishment should it happen.
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.
Now, on the surface, nothing seems objectionable here. After all, who “doesn’t” oppose measures to stop people from committing genocide against another? All of this seems sensible.
However, there is another way to look at it. Instead of committing overt violence against a group, more subtle measures could be introduced. These would be measures that would bring about the same effects.
An obvious on is replacement migration. Try to reduce the birth rate in one country by various means, such as claiming it’s to prevent climate change. Then, once the population starts dropping, introduce “replacement” migration to make up for the shortfall.
Another common technique is the concept of multiculturalism. Let’s be honest here. Multiculturalism is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Trying to get very different cultures to live together never works out. It ends with either:
Balkanization/Enclaves
Parallel societies
Erosion of the host culture
Tension and/or violence
Some combination of the above
Still one more technique is to implement laws which guarantee social cohesion will never take place. These include affirmative action or quotas in schools or employment. There can also be laws to erode or erase parts of the group identity, ensuring tension will never go away.
What if this type of system was deliberately inflicted, by trying to mix incompatible groups?
5. 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)
Source is here. These organizations meet regularly to discuss global migration issues, as the name implies.
It’s also interesting the sheer number and range of UN groups involved with this “Global Migration Group”. Education, higher education, trade, research, refugees and labour all affiliated with it.
6. Rome Population Conference (1954)
World Population Conference
Rome, 31 August- 10 September 10 1954
The First World Population Conference organized by the United Nations was held in Rome in 1954 to exchange scientific information on population variables, their determinants and their consequences. This eminently academic Conference resolved basically to generate fuller information on the demographic situation of the developing countries and to promote the creation of regional training centres which would help to address population issues and to prepare specialists in demographic analysis.
World Population Conference
Belgrade, 30 August-10 September 1965
The Second World Population Conference was organized in 1965 by the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the United Nations; most of the participants were experts in the field. The focus at this international meeting was on the analysis of fertility as part of a policy for development planning. This Conference was held at a time when expert studies on the population aspects of development coincided with the start-up of population programmes subsidized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The World Population Conference was hold in Bucharest, Romania, from 19 to 30 August 1974. Representatives of 136 Member States attended (more than 1400 persons). The draft of the World Population Plan of Action, prepared by the Population Division with the assistance of an advisory committee of experts, had been reviewed by the Population Commission and discussed at the five regional meetings. The draft was amended by the working group and adopted by the plenary.
At the time the UN had 138 Member States. Family planning was being promoted by 59 countries.
The World Population Plan of Action had four parts:
-background;
-principles and objectives;
-recommendations for action, and
-recommendations for implementation.
Negotiations tended to make aspects of population policies weaker and aspects of social and economic development stronger. The Conference became polarized between the ‘incrementalist’ position of a group of Western States (including US, UK, Germany) that believed that rapid population growth was a serious impediment to development, and the ‘redistribution’ position, followed by a group of developing countries led by Argentina and Algeria that believed that the population problem was a consequence and not a cause of underdevelopment and that it could be solved by a new international economic order focusing on the redistribution of resources
Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population between 6 – 14 August 1984. It was attended by representatives of 147 Member States (the UN had 157 Member States). At the time 123 countries promoted family planning.
The Conference adopted the Recommendations for the Further Implementation of the WPPA. Several key Member States had changed positions compared to those they had in 1974. The United States now considered population a neutral phenomenon for development. Many developing countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan expressed their firm support for family planning and population programmes. Many developed countries, including Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom stated their willingness to increase their support for population programmes. The United States stated its policy of not funding any programmes facilitating abortion.
Building up towards the Cairo Conference
Population Commission as Preparatory Committee The Preparatory Committee met three times. At its first session (4-8 March 1991) the Committee set the objectives of the meeting and defined the issues to be discussed; agreed to take account of the outcomes of recent United Nations global conferences; and considered the assignment or responsibilities to United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. At its second Session (1-21 May 1993), in which observers from 185 NGOs were present, the Preparatory Committee agreed to establish a new programme of action to replace the WPPA and the Mexico recommendations to guide action on population in the next 20 years and directed the Secretariat to hold a substantive debate on the concept and structure of the proposed Recommendations of the Conference. At its third session (4-22 April 1994) the Preparatory Committee discussed the ‘Draft Final Document: Programme of Action of the Conference’ prepared by the Secretariat.
The International Conference on Population and Development
The International Conference on Population and Development was convened in Cairo, Egypt, from 5 to 13 September 1994. It was attended by 179 governmental delegations from UN Member States, 7 observers at governmental level, the European Union and several hundred NGOs. Several thousand media representatives covered the Conference.
The Conference adopted the Programme of Action, which emphasized the fundamental role of women’s interests in population matters and introduced the concepts of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. A new definition of population policy was advanced, giving prominence to reproductive health and the empowerment of women.
A series of expert meetings, has been held by the United Nations over the last 20 years. All of these involve population control and management.
13. New York Declaration (2016)
The actual text is here for the New York Declaration of 2016. Basically this is a “warm-up” to the infamous GLOBAL MIGRATION COMPACT. In fact, most of the text here appears in the 2018 UN GMC, just worded a bit differently.
Here, are the main points in the NY declaration. They were covered in a previous piece, so I won’t be going into detail here.
14. Global Migration Compact (2018)
That was also covered here, and this document is the original source material. A plan to help move some 258 million (yes, million) people from one country to another, and to enshrine new “rights” for these migrants. Of course there is the vile “OBJECTIVE 17(c)” which effectively criminalises criticism of migration and allows media outlets to be shut down.
15. Replace S. Korea Population
E. Conclusion
There is no doubt that the elderly will increase and the absolute size of the total population will decline in the future. Although the UN projected the size of net immigrants in Korea will remain constant in the future, it cannot be ensured that such maximum sizes are the most optimum in terms of the socio-economic, environmental and other factors. In other words, the criteria for projection of the numbers of net immigrants should be determined, taking into account all the factors to be included in addition to demographic factor.
However, experts agree that the change in population size and structure, specifically population ageing, will require an influx of foreign labor migrants to keep the national productivity that will help accommodate the promotion of quality of life for the whole population. Specifically, it provides an opportunity to emphasize to policy-makers that the future population policies need to be integrated with health, welfare and social security related policies.
Since the female participation in economic activity is still low in comparison with those in western countries, the policy for increasing women’s economic participation will play an important role in compensating for the expected shortage of labor, through which the support for the increasing old persons can be helped. As a matter of fact, the Korean government has made efforts to improve conditions for encouraging female’s employment; which include improvement on gender discrimination in employment and increases in compatibility of women’s work with child rearing.
The UN has been researching, among other places, South Korea. It recommends mass migration to stem the declining population, which is no surprise. Let’s get women working more, hence decreasing the amount of Korean children who are born. Of course, when the numbers drop, further replacement migration is always possible.
This report never seems to value the ethnic and cultural homogeny that S. Korea has. There is no emphasis on maintaining its identity. Instead, keep pushing for more and more replacement migration.
16. Replace The Russian Population
D. CONCLUSIONS In Russia, like in most industrial countries, the balance of births and deaths will most likely be such in the first half of the 21st century that the natural population increase will be negative. If the country’s population will continue to depend largely on the natural reproduction, it will unavoidably decrease in size and will age rapidly. These two trends might be counteracted only by an inflow of immigrants, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the volume and composition of immigration flows.
Nevertheless, Russia could unlikely avoid the arrival of large immigration inflows. On one hand, their inevitability is dictated by the internal demographic situation in Russia. While unfavorable consequences of the population aging are not so dramatic as sometimes imagined, and those actually present may be largely neutralized by economic and social policy measures, the population decrease will present Russia with a very hard choice. It should either succumb to a continuous aggravation of the already meager population / territory ratio, or to widely open its doors to immigration.
Both solutions bear unwelcome consequences, so the lesser of two evils should be chosen. On the other hand, the future developments cannot be predicted without taking into account the demographic situation outside Russia, particularly the overpopulation beyond its southern frontiers. This overpopulation together with the increasing mobility of the populations in the neighbouring countries will unavoidably produce a growing migration pressure, at least in the form of illegal migration, that will become more and more difficult to hold in check and which will compel Russia to respond with expanding the legal immigration possibilities.
As with South Korea, the UN recommends that Russia replace its population in order to “save itself”. Interestingly, the solution is never to have more local births. It is always mass migration.
17. Replace The European Populations
The analysis of recent developments in cohort fertility profiles indicates that a return of European fertility levels to, or close to, replacement level is not in the making. Even if the pace of postponement in western counties slows down or stops altogether, only a modest rise in TFRs is to be envisaged. This rise, furthermore, strongly depends on the amount of fertility recuperation at older ages (i.e. past age 30), and except for the Scandinavian countries, this recuperation has been inadequate, and strongly so in a number of large EU-countries (Spain, Italy, Germany). In Eastern and Central Europe the steep fertility decline is predominantly a feature of the 1990s, and caused by a fertility reduction in all cohorts, irrespective of the stage of family building or age. Also in these countries the degree of fertility recuperation, particularly for the post-Communist generations, will be crucial in establishing more acceptable levels of period fertility. Finally, policy measures directly aimed at influencing fertility have had clear, but only temporary effects, and also sustained policies producing sometimes large income transfers in favour of families with children have not had any substantial effects either.
The prospect of long term sub replacement fertility had to revive the issue of replacement migration sooner or later. In this respect the UN-report (2000) drew widespread media attention all over Europe, but the unfortunate feature was that the media zoomed in on the results of only one simulation, i.e. the one maintaining a constant PSR at all times till 2050. Much earlier formal demographic analysis (e.g. Blanchet, 1988) had indicated that such age structure equilibration leads to impossible outcomes, in contrast to longer term views with less stringent constraints. However, the latter still lead to record immigration intakes of over 1.0 million p.a. from 2025 onward for the EU as well as for the remainder of Europe. Moreover, the efficiency of such a replacement migration remains limited if not complemented by other measures such as the rise of labour force participation rates. The latter is particularly needed in countries, both in and outside the EU, that had a considerable reduction in male activity rates above age 50 or have a small female labour force participation expressed in full time equivalents. Finally, replacement migration into the EU needs to be directed especially toward the countries with the largest fertility deficit, including Italy and Spain who have only more recently become immigration countries. Hence, the million or so extra immigrants should by no means be spread evenly within the EU territory
In this last article, Europe is recommended to ramp up their mass migration to fulfill labour shortages. It’s always the same solution, isn’t it?
18. Thoughts On The Topic
This replacement migration plan is disturbing beyond belief. It is a globally coordinated effort to replace the host populations throughout the developed world, and to maintain control over the new ones. It reads like some plot in a children’s cartoon. However, it is actually happening.
