U.N. Death Cult: 73 Million Abortions Annually Worldwide

The World Health Organization openly posts and discusses some pretty disturbing and messed up data on abortion worldwide. (See archive).

This expands on a recent Canuck Law article, which estimates that there have been over 4.2 million abortions just in Canada since 1970. This averages out to approximately 20% of pregnancies being willfully terminated. Few are aware of just how big this problem is.

Here are some claims W.H.O. promotes:

  • Abortion is a common health intervention. It is safe when carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the pregnancy duration and by someone with the necessary skills.
  • Six out of 10 of all unintended pregnancies end in an induced abortion.
  • Around 45% of all abortions are unsafe, of which 97% take place in developing countries.
  • Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities. It can lead to physical and mental health complications and social and financial burdens for women, communities and health systems.
  • Lack of access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is a critical public health and human rights issue.

And this one is a doozy:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion

This claim is based on work from Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Ganatra B, Moller A-B, Tunçalp Ö, Beavin C et al, which covered estimates from the years 1990 through 2019. They used a “Bayesian framework”, meaning dta on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based surveys, official statistics, and published studies found through a literature search. So, it’s not just a straight compilation, but estimates as well.

Of course, if this figure of 73 million, per year, is even remotely accurate, it would be somewhere between 2 and 5 billion children have been aborted since the 1970s, when the movement really took off.

Restrictive abortion regulation can cause distress and stigma, and risk constituting a violation of human rights of women and girls, including the right to privacy and the right to non-discrimination and equality, while also imposing financial burdens on women and girls. Regulations that force women to travel to attain legal care, or require mandatory counselling or waiting periods, lead to loss of income and other financial costs, and can make abortion inaccessible to women with low resources.

Estimates from 2006 show that complications of unsafe abortions cost health systems in developing countries US$ 553 million per year for post-abortion treatments. In addition, households experienced US$ 922 million in loss of income due to long-term disability related to unsafe abortion. Countries and health systems could make substantial monetary savings by providing greater access to modern contraception and quality induced abortion.

A set of scoping reviews from 2021 indicate that abortion regulations – by being linked to fertility – affect women’s education, participation on the labour market and positive contribution to GDP growth. The legal status of abortion can also affect children’s educational outcomes, and their earnings on the labour market later in life. For example, legalization of abortion – by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus increasing the likelihood that children are born wanted – can be linked to greater parental investments in children, including in girls’ schooling.

Does W.H.O. condemn the hundreds of millions — if not billions — of lives that are lost through this? Not exactly. The rights of the unborn never seem to factor into the equation.

W.H.O. attempts to make several economic arguments as to why abortion should be legal and as accessible as possible. Of course, they don’t seem to bother with addressing the long term physical and psychological impacts of women who do abort their children.

The World Health Organization also has its own division on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH). (See archive). It’s funded both by various governments and private companies, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (See archive). They always seem to be around whenever there are population reduction programs involved.

5.6 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

Enshrining abortion is also written right into Agenda 2030, which was signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper in 2015. (See archive). It’s item #5.6 on the Treaty.

One might think it strange that population control groups are interested in keeping abortion legal and readily available. Then again, once one realizes the scale of this mass infanticide, things start to make a whole lot more sense.

Furthermore, the W.H.O. and U.N. link to the U.N. Population Fund, their 2014 Programme of Action, and to the Beijing Declaration And Platform For Action. (See archive). In a sick twist, abortion is promoted as women’s rights, and pregnancy an often unwanted evil.

Of course, 50% or so of the babies who are killed would have grown up to become women. This is something that many women’s rights groups don’t get, or at least pretend they don’t.

It’s interesting that groups like the United Nations claim to be against child exploitation and human trafficking. That said, they support encourage practices that ensure the deaths of countless unborn, while their remains can be sold off for a variety of purposes.

It’s even more disturbing that the U.N. keeps detailed and up-to-date records of abortion regulations across countries. Guess it’s one way of tracking where the most victims are likely to come from.

Has abortion been stopped, or slowed over the last 2 1/2 years during this so-called pandemic? Not at all. In fact, it’s one of the few things that were still available in Canada the entire time. Sure, weddings, churches, and funerals were “non-essential”. However, abortion, weed and liquor were still accessible.

SOURCE MATERIAL
(1) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/eugenics-in-canada-20-of-babies-aborted-in-pro-choice-movement/
(3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32710833/
(4) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme
(5) https://archive.ph/uyd8J
(6) https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/human-reproduction-programme/donors
(7) https://archive.ph/7tb5Q
(8) https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/2030_agenda_for_sustainable_development_web.pdf
(9) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development web
(10) https://www.unfpa.org/publications/international-conference-population-and-development-programme-action
(11) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/CSW/PFA_E_Final_WEB.pdf
(12) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/UN-Beijing-Declaration-And-Platform-For-Action.pdf
(13) https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/related-health-issues
(14) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331561/WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services-2020.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
(15) WHO-2019-nCoV Essential Health Services 2020 March 2020
(16) WHO-2019-nCoV-essential_health_services June 2020
(17) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/AbortionPoliciesReproductiveHealth.pdf

International Mobility Programme Data: 1994-2013

Below is some significant data on temporary foreign workers (TFW) from 1994 to 2013. (See archive). In fairness, the totals differ somewhat from the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Perhaps, the methods of calculation weren’t the same.

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.

There’s also the issue that “temporary” workers and students often don’t leave when their visas expire. Canada offers many pathways to extend their stays, and there is little in the way of enforcement.

Aside from all the official totals, there are 3 “temporary” programs that are worth mentioning. These lead to hundreds of thousands of foreigners entering Canada each year, and most with some option to extend. There are also pathways to permanent residence. These are:

  • Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP)
  • International Mobility Programme (IMP)
  • International Students

Let’s look at a decade worth of data, and see where the bulk of these people are coming from. Of course, this should be pretty obvious. This is from page 27 and 36, and focuses on the International Mobility Programme. In fairness, it’s likely that a lot of these people leave afterwards. That said, having the rates would be nice.

2. International Mobility Programme: Permit Holders 1994-2013

For reference: the International Mobility Visas (also known as “Working Holiday Visas”) are typically valid for 1-2 years. The charts below refer to the total at any given year.

YEAR
NEW IMP PERMITS ISSUED
1994 64,020
1995 60,358
1996 59,293
1997 61,339
1998 64,405
1999 67,584
2000 71,186
2001 72,525
2002 66,984
2003 58,619
2004 66,757
2005 72,689
2006 81,312
2007 88,217
2008 102,659
2009 106,737
2010 121,642
2011 138,533
2012 148,070
2013 161,541

This is from page 27 of this report. Overall data is from 1994 to 2013. Also, the number of permits has nearly tripled from 1994 (64,000) through to 2013 (161,000).

3. Source Countries For International Mobility: 2004 To 2013

INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2004
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 18,567 27.8 1
Australia 7,271 10.9 2
France 7,028 10.5 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,476 9.7 4
Japan 5,916 8.9 5
Germany 2,467 3.7 6
China 1,801 2.8 7
Ireland 1,615 2.4 8
South Korea 1,558 1.8 9
New Zealand 1,484 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 53,517 80.2
TOTAL — OTHERS 13,240 19.8
GRAND TOTAL 66,757 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2005
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 19,453 26.8 1
France 8,636 11.9 2
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,701 9.2 3
Japan 6,244 9.2 4
Germany 2,751 3.8 5
South Korea 1,998 2.7 6
China 1,959 2.7 7
New Zealand 1,702 2.3 8
India 1,688 2.3 9
Ireland 1,572 2.2 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 52,704 72.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 19,985 27.5
GRAND TOTAL 72,689 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2006
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 21,469 26.4 1
France 9,767 12.0 2
Australia 7,975 9.8 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 6,894 8.5 4
Japan 5,953 7.3 5
Germany 4,211 5.2 6
India 2,295 2.8 7
China 2,242 2.8 8
South Korea 2,009 2.5 9
Ireland 1,998 2.5 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 64,813 79.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 16,499 20.3
GRAND TOTAL 81,312 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2007
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 22,168 25.1 1
France 10,358 11.7 2
Australia 8,220 9.3 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 7,397 8.4 4
Japan 5,683 6.4 5
Germany 4,809 5.5 6
China 2,822 3.2 7
South Korea 2,363 2.7 8
Ireland 2,259 2.6 9
New Zealand 2,058 2.3 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 68,137 77.3
TOTAL — OTHERS 20,080 22.7
GRAND TOTAL 88,217 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2008
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 24,169 23.5 1
Australia 11,879 11.6 2
France 11,505 11.2 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 7,813 7.6 4
Japan 6,715 6.5 5
Germany 5,336 5.2 6
India 3,776 3.7 7
South Korea 3,318 3.2 8
China 3,098 3.0 9
New Zealand 2,436 2.4 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 80,045 78.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 22,614 22.0
GRAND TOTAL 102,659 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2009
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 23,446 22.0 1
France 14,233 13.3 2
Australia 10,053 9.4 3
United Kingdom 7,983 7.5 4
Germany 6,092 5.7 5
Japan 5,954 5.6 6
India 4,166 3.9 7
South Korea 4,041 3.8 8
China 2,920 2.7 9
Ireland 2,812 2.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 81,700 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 25,037 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 106,737 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2010
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 27,398 22.5 1
France 16,107 13.2 2
Australia 10,375 8.5 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 8,161 6.7 4
Germany 6,812 5.6 5
India 6,603 5.4 6
South Korea 5,508 4.5 7
Japan 5,059 4.2 8
Ireland 3,649 3.0 9
Philippines 3,440 2.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 93,112 76.5
TOTAL — OTHERS 28,530 23.5
GRAND TOTAL 121,642 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2011
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 27,979 20.2 1
France 17,509 12.6 2
India 9,961 7.2 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 9,386 6.8 4
Australia 9,160 6.6 5
Germany 6,854 4.9 6
Japan 6,284 4.5 7
South Korea 6,014 4.3 8
Philippines 5,514 4.0 9
Ireland 5,247 3.8 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 103,908 75.0
TOTAL — OTHERS 34,625 25.0
GRAND TOTAL 138,533 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2012
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 29,833 20.1 1
France 17,951 12.1 2
India 11,368 7.7 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 9,771 6.6 4
Australia 9,135 6.2 5
Germany 6,932 4.7 6
Japan 6,436 4.3 7
Ireland 6,231 4.2 8
South Korea 6,144 4.1 9
Philippines 5,387 3.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 109,188 73.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 38,882 26.3
GRAND TOTAL 148,070 100
INT’L MOBILITY PROGRAMME, PERMITS HOLDERS IN 2013
SOURCE COUNTRY NUMBER PERCENTAGE RANK
United States 30,399 18.8 1
France 19,971 12.4 2
India 14,251 8.8 3
United Kingdom, Colonies 10,189 6.3 4
Australia 9,840 6.1 5
Ireland 7,076 4.4 6
Japan 6,723 4.1 7
Philippines 6,703 4.1 8
Germany 6,386 4.0 9
South Korea 5,885 3.6 10
TOTAL — TOP 10 117,423 72.7
TOTAL — OTHERS 44,118 27.3
GRAND TOTAL 161,541 100

It should also be mentioned: it’s likely that a lot more of people from this program will actually leave afterwards, as opposed to international students, and the TFWP.

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

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

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

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

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

U.S. Customs And Border Protection: Some Statistics On The Invasion

This piece focuses on the problem that is the United States border, particularly the side with Mexico. There have been many interests vested in not securing it. Consequently, people flood in illegally, since there’s little reason not to.

Why should Canadians care about this?

The answer is simple: it’s not just an American problem. Open borders threatens the sovereignty of nations in general. Not only that, many of those illegal aliens will surely be working their way to Canada, given the generous welfare benefits available.

Unfortunately, far too few Canadians, including many “conservatives”, fail to realize that open borders changes everything. The makeup of the country impacts everything: voting patterns; finance; culture; crime; and future immigration policies. And the mantra “just come legally” misses the bigger picture.

For an earlier piece on the estimated real scale of illegals in the U.S., north of 22 million. There was also this gem in 2018, suing for the right to illegally enter the U.S.

Now, let’s get into some of the data from the USCBP, or the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. The numbers are quite shocking indeed.

A note about “fiscal year”: Fiscal Year 2022 runs October 01, 2021 – September 30, 2022. All of the years seem to be done in this format.

“Recidivism” in the context of CBP refers to the percentage of people who are detained multiple times within the same fiscal year. It’s been approximately 25% the last few years, meaning 1/4 of people caught and forced to leave are caught again. There doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent. As for drugs being brought in:

Month Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Meth Fentanyl Other
October 2021 376 220 0 290 73 3
November 2021 191 73 0 581 84 3
December 2021 127 102 66 559 26 4
January 2022 360 39 0 457 65 56
February 2022 785 90 2 268 12 27
March 2022 58 50 2 224 13 4
April 2022 259 186 14 479 174 19

Data from the 2022 fiscal year (thus far). The C.B.P. also provides recent statistics on the drug busts that have occurred from people trying to bring narcotics into the country. While it’s nice to have these seizures, it’s likely just a drop in the bucket as to what really goes on.

AGENCY INVOLVED FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
Office of Field Operations Encounters 216,370 281,881 288,523 241,786 294,352 259,057
U.S. Border Patrol Total Encounters 310,531 404,142 859,501 405,036 1,662,167 1,219,920
Total Enforcement Actions 526,901 683,178 1,148,024 646,822 1,956,519 1,478,977

For “enforcement actions”, this refers to: individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws, and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe. This is according to the CBP’s own definition.

In other words, it’s the number of people who show up LEGALLY to border ports of entry and then are turned away. It doesn’t cover the vast numbers who enter illegally between border ports.

CATEGORY FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
Office Of Field Operations
Criminal Non-Citizens 10,596 11,623 12,705 7,009 6,567 9,101
NCIC Arrests 7,656 5,929 8,546 7,108 8,979 5,580
U.S. Border Patrol
Criminal Noncitizens Encountered 8,531 6,698 4,269 2,438 10,763 5,985
Criminal Noncitizens With Warrants 2,675 1,550 4,153 2,054 1,904 525

There have also been considerable amounts of arrests for people who either had criminal records, and/or outstanding warrants. This doesn’t include people who entered without being detected.

GANG ARRESTS FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
18th Street 84 47 61 145 168 36 28 66
MS-13 335 253 228 413 464 72 113 149
Paisas 73 119 53 62 90 93 79 80
Other 352 283 194 188 254 162 128 98
Total 844 702 536 808 976 363 348 393

There have also been gang-related arrests of people attempting to enter the United States. Of course, not all are included, just a few which represent the larger numbers of arrests.

Concerning arrests of suspected terrorists (all nationalities), CBP provides some data of people detained at both the Southern and Northern borders.

TERRORISTS AT BORDER FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22TD
Southern Border 116 155 280 72 103 42
Northern Border 217 196 258 124 54 115
Total 333 351 538 196 157 157

How many encounters does the U.S. Government have overall? Thankfully, they do provide more data, and a lot of it is mind blowing.

Nationwide Encounters
.
Encounter data includes U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Title 8 Apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 Inadmissibles, and Title 42 Expulsions for fiscal years (FY) 2020, 2021, and 2022. Data is available for the Northern Land Border, Southwest Land Border, and Nationwide (i.e., air, land, and sea modes of transportation) encounters.

FISCAL YEAR 2019 2020 2021 2022
October 60,781 45,139 71,929 164,849
November 62,469 42,643 72,113 174,849
December 70,694 40,565 73,994 179,254
January 58,317 36,585 78,414 154,816
February 76,545 36,687 101,099 165,900
March 103,731 34,460 173,277 221,144
April 109,415 17,106 178,795 234,088
May 114,116 23,237 180,597
June 104,311 33,049 189,034
July 81,777 40,929 213,593
August 62,707 50,014 209,840
TOTAL 904,863 400,414 1,542,685 1,141,054 (so far)

Once more, how many people are simply sneaking in undetected?

The data can further be broken down by the type of person/people coming:

  • Accompanied Minors (AM)
  • Individuals in a Family Unit (FMUA)
  • Single Adults
  • Unaccompanied Children (UC)

While there are clearly a lot of people who get stopped by the various departments, an awful lot don’t. They are let in through some pathway, or just sneak in.

It also doesn’t help that there are countless Sanctuary Cities and States, which do an end run around border security. If people know they can get social services without the risk of being deported, many more will come.

Again, this is not just an American issue. Many of the hordes flooding into the U.S. will eventually make their way North. Canadians should absolutely be worried about this.

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

Don’t worry, there will be much more included on this subject in the near future. This can’t be done justice by a single piece.

(1) https://www.cbp.gov/
(2) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics
(3) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters
(4) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/true-scale-of-illegals-in-us-22-million-more-amnesty-coming/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-2-migrant-caravan-lawyers-sue-for-right-to-legally-invade-u-s/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-10b-sanctuary-cities-an-end-run-around-having-borders/

Source Countries For International Students: 2004-2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replacement Migration In Canada: 1980 – 2020 Statistics

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

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

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

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Genocidal Population Replacement Long Time Problem

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

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

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

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

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

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

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 33 of the 2020 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2021 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Documents Provided By Canadian Government

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

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

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

Pluralism Is A Policy Of Population Replacement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, are conservatives proud of this?

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

Rempel did explain herself more fully:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: