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/

Counter Intelligence Firms To Influence Elections (Canada And Abroad), Registered As Charities

This is a follow-up to an earlier article. Various groups, which claim to be fighting “misinformation” are actually run by political operatives in Canada. Some of the grants that Canadian taxpayers shell out are also listed. The previous piece will provide a lot of background.

Now the question remains: what do their finances look like? Since many of these groups are in fact registered charities, this information is freely available.

The description as “counter intelligence” is fitting here. While claiming to promote the idea of fairness and openness in the electoral process, these companies won’t ever give the full picture. They’ll never address topics like central banking, the climate change hoax, the “pandemic” psy-op, or many hard questions. In fact, some of these groups run “disinformation” campaigns to prevent the truth about CV from getting out.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines counter intelligence as: “secret action taken by a country to prevent another country from discovering its military, industrial, or political secrets”. However, instead of a struggle between 2 countries, it’s one between government and its people.

Lenin’s famous quote applies here: the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Ongoing programs:
ADVANCING EDUCATION BY INCREASING CANADIAN YOUTH AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE VOTE IN CANADIAN ELECTIONS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CANADIAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THROUGH THE USE OF MULTIMEDIA, ART, FILM, TV, INTERNET PROJECT, WRITTEN MATERIALS, SEMINARS, LECTURES.

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $5,000.00 (0.36%)
Non-receipted donations $14,580.00 (1.06%)
Gifts from other registered charities $220,520.00 (15.96%)
Government funding $1,064,684.00 (77.06%)
All other revenue $76,923.00 (5.57%)
Total revenue: $1,381,707.00

Charitable programs $1,174,140.00 (86.07%)
Management and administration $190,027.00 (13.93%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $1,364,167.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $30,200.00 (1.35%)
Non-receipted donations $17,083.00 (0.76%)
Gifts from other registered charities $265,000.00 (11.86%)
Government funding $1,724,916.00 (77.21%)
All other revenue $196,872.00 (8.81%)
Total revenue: $2,234,071.00

Charitable programs $1,855,731.00 (88.87%)
Management and administration $232,460.00 (11.13%)
Fundraising $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,088,191.00

The Apathy Is Boring Project claims to try to increase public participation in elections by producing educational content on how the process works.

Ongoing programs:
CIVIX IS A CIVIC EDUCATION CHARITY DEDICATED TO BUILDING THE HABITS OF ACTIVE AND INFORMED CITIZENSHIP AMOUNG YOUTH. STUDENT VOTE IS THE FLAGSHIP PROGRAM OF CIVIX. COINCIDING WITH OFFICIAL ELECTION PERIODS, STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, DISCUSS RELEVANT ISSUES AND CAST BALLOTS FOR THE OFFICIAL ELECTION CANDIDATES. CIVIX ALSO OFFERS OTHER INITIATIVES BETWEEN ELECTIONS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT BUDGET CONSULTATIONS FOR YOUTH (STUDENT BUDGET CONSTULATION), COODINATED VISITS BETWEEN STUDENTS AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (REP DAY), AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS (DEMOCRACY BOOTCAMP) AND DIGITAL MEDIAL LITERACY THAT AIMS TO HELP STUDENTS DEVELOP THE SKILLS AND HABITS TO BE CRITICAL CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION.
.
New programs:
CIVIX EXPANDED ITS PROGRAMMING TO COLOMBIA.

[2018 tax information]
Receipted donations $51,570.00 (2.31%)
Non-receipted donations $83,463.00 (3.74%)
Gifts from other registered charities $550,846.00 (24.70%)
Government funding $1,536,915.00 (68.91%)
All other revenue $7,393.00 (0.33%)
Total revenue: $2,230,187.00

Charitable programs $2,429,729.00 (92.06%)
Management and administration $140,741.00 (5.33%)
Fundraising $68,780.00 (2.61%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,639,250.00

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $25,000.00 (0.49%)
Non-receipted donations $85,822.00 (1.67%)
Gifts from other registered charities $831,491.00 (16.16%)
Government funding $3,483,769.00 (67.70%)
All other revenue $719,631.00 (13.99%)
Total revenue: $5,145,713.00

Charitable programs $4,691,097.00 (94.81%)
Management and administration $162,708.00 (3.29%)
Fundraising $93,850.00 (1.90%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,947,655.00

CIVIX is a registered charity in Canada that claims to promote democracy in locally. Apparently, it’s also involved with elections in Colombia as well. Glad to know that public money is used to meddle with another country’s leadership.

Ongoing programs:
ICC HOSTS CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE COMMUNITY CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES ARE A CELEBRATION OF CANADA’S NEWEST CITIZENS AND OFFER UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES TO REFLECT ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE ACTIVE AND ENGAGED CITIZENS. CANOO IS A MOBILE APP THAT PROVIDES FREE ADMISSION FOR NEW CANADIAN CITIZENS TO MUSEUMS, SCIENCE CENTRES, ART GALLERIES, PARKS AND HISTORIC SITES ACROSS CANADA. THE APP OFFERS FREE ADMISSION FOR EVERY NEW CITIZEN AND UP TO 4 CHILDREN DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP. THE CANOO APP IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON THE APPLE STORE AND GOOGLE PLAY. 6 DEGREES IS A GLOBAL FORUM THAT BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER TO EXCHANGE IDEAS AND CREATE CONVERSATION IN ORDER TO MOTIVATE POSITIVE CHANGE IN ATTITUDES, BEHAVIOR AND POLICY. IT IS ABOUT INCLUSION, CONNECTION, ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION, ENGAGEMENT AND THE POWER THAT COMES FROM BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER TO OPEN HEARTS AND CHANGE MINDS.

.
New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
2 countries
.
GERMANY
MEXICO

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $238,781.00 (4.57%)
Non-receipted donations $1,268,590.00 (24.30%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $3,553,256.00 (68.06%)
All other revenue $160,196.00 (3.07%)
Total revenue: $5,220,823.00

Charitable programs $4,595,568.00 (89.02%)
Management and administration $386,970.00 (7.50%)
Fundraising $180,044.00 (3.49%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $5,162,582.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $208,421.00 (7.00%)
Non-receipted donations $809,716.00 (27.20%)
Gifts from other registered charities $6,962.00 (0.23%)
Government funding $1,840,232.00 (61.81%)
All other revenue $112,074.00 (3.76%)
Total revenue: $2,977,405.00

Charitable programs $3,478,136.00 (86.56%)
Management and administration $371,785.00 (9.25%)
Fundraising $168,425.00 (4.19%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Other $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $4,018,346.00

Institute for Canadian Citizenship was started up by Adrian Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada. While claiming to promote citizenship for new Canadians, the NGO is active in gaslighting with claims of racism, and promoting the disinformation narrative. In short, it functions like a media arm of the Federal Government, while pretending to be neutral.

Programs and activities:
.
Ongoing programs:
Educate African journalists about human rights; Educate African public about human rights via media; Award journalists for excellent human rights reporting; Educate Canadian students about human rights; Educate Canadian Aboriginal journalists about human rights; Educate Canadian public about human rights through media; Educate Jordanian journalists about human rights; Educate Syrian journalists about human rights.

New programs:
Operations Outside Canada
11 countries

  • CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
  • KENYA
  • JORDAN
  • SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
  • TUNISIA
  • MALI
  • IRAQ
  • YEMEN
  • MAURITANIA
  • UGANDA
  • SOUTH SUDAN

[2019 tax information]
Receipted donations $155,295.00 (5.29%)
Non-receipted donations $247,342.00 (8.42%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,736,550.00 (59.10%)
All other revenue $799,066.00 (27.20%)
Total revenue: $2,938,253.00

Charitable programs $2,441,992.00 (85.63%)
Management and administration $245,459.00 (8.61%)
Fundraising $164,388.00 (5.76%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,851,845.00

[2020 tax information]
Receipted donations $211,784.00 (7.60%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (0.61%)
Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
Government funding $1,866,127.00 (66.98%)
All other revenue $691,054.00 (24.80%)
Total revenue: $2,786,075.00

Charitable programs $2,621,360.00 (93.10%)
Management and administration $147,657.00 (5.24%)
Fundraising $46,742.00 (1.66%)
Political activities $0.00 (0.00%)
Gifts to other registered charities and qualified donees $0.00 (0.00%)
Total expenses: $2,815,759.00

Journalists for Human Rights is another such group. While it may seem harmless enough to promote human rights abroad, it’s worth noting that these groups remain silent on what happens in Canada. They say nothing about the martial law and medical tyranny imposed on the people who help fund them.

JHR also helps fund “Disinfo Watch”, a supposedly independent website devoted to debunking conspiracy theories about the “pandemic”.

Simon Fraser University (BC) and Ryerson University (Ontario) are listed as being organizations to counter misinformation. Both are registered charities, according to the Canada Revenue Agency.

These are just some of the media influencers working in Canada to misinform and deceive the public. And they are partially funded with tax dollars.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2019/07/backgrounder–helping-citizens-critically-assess-and-become-resilient-against-harmful-online-disinformation.html
(2) https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/
(3) https://www.apathyisboring.com/
(4) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyQckVw?q.srchNm=apathy+is+boring&q.stts=0007&selectedFilingPeriodIndex=1&selectedCharityBn=859483349RR0001&isSingleResult=false
(5) https://nmc-mic.ca/
(6) https://civix.ca/
(7) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?
(8) https://www.ewc-rdc.ca/pub/en/mission_history
(9) https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/institute-for-canadian-citizenshipinstitut-pour-la-citoyennete-canadienne/
(10) https://www.globalvision.ca
(11) https://www.inclusion.ca/
(12) https://www.jhr.ca/
(13) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyRprtngPrd?q.srchNm=journalists+for+human+rights&q.stts=0007&selectedCharityBn=860372853RR0001&dsrdPg=1
(14) www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/
(15) https://mediasmarts.ca/
(16) www.newcanadianmedia.ca
(17) https://newsmediacanada.ca
(18) https://www.ryerson.ca/arts/research-and-innovation/democratic-engagement-exchange/
(19) http://www.samaracanada.com
(20) swna.com
(21) www.sfu.ca/dialogue.html
(22) www.vubblepop.com
(23) https://canucklaw.ca/media-subsidies-to-counter-online-misinformation-groups-led-by-political-operatives/
(24) https://canucklaw.ca/taxpayer-grants-to-fight-misinformation-in-media-including-more-pandemic-bucks/
(25) https://canucklaw.ca/more-pandemic-bucks-for-disinformation-prevention-locally-and-abroad-civix/
(26) https://canucklaw.ca/phac-supporting-science-up-first-online-counter-misinformation-group/
(27) https://canucklaw.ca/disinfowatch-ties-to-atlas-network-connected-to-lpc-political-operatives/

Let’s Outsource Canada’s Industries & C.F.M.O. a.k.a. “CANZUK”

(Bev Collins & NAFTA)

2. Offshoring, Globalization, Free Trade

The other posts on outsourcing/offshoring are available here. It focuses on the hidden costs and trade offs society as a whole has to make. Contrary to what many politicians and figures in the media claim, there are always costs to these kinds of agreement. These include: (a) job losses; (b) wages being driven down; (c) undercutting of local companies; (d) legal action by foreign entities; (e) industries being outsourced; (f) losses to communities when major employers leave; and (g) loss of sovereignty to foreign corporations and governments. Intellectual property also becomes a tricky issue. Don’t believe the lies that these agreements are overwhelmingly beneficial to all.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the World Trade Organization (WTO), on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t trade deal listings.

CLICK HERE, for the modified version of T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Colombia FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Honduras FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Panama FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Korea FTA.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International.

3. Who’s Involved In Various Deals

(A) NAFTA includes: Mexico and the U.S.
(B) The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
(C) Canada-Colombia FTA includes: Colombia
(D) Canada-Honduras FTA includes: Honduras
(E) Canada-Panama FTA includes: Panama
(F) Canada-Korea FTA includes: S. Korea
(G) Commonwealth Free Movement (a.k.a “CANZUK”) includes:
-Anguilla
-Antigua
-The Bahamas
-Bangladesh
-Barbados
-Barbuda
-Belize
-Christmas Island
-the Cook Islands
-Guernsey
-India
-the Isle of Man
-Jamaica
-Jersey
-Nevis
-Nigeria
-Pakistan
-Papua New Guinea
-Saint Kitts

4. “National Treatment”, Chapter 11, NAFTA

The so-called “national treatment” provisions were a very harmful part of NAFTA, which was signed in 1995. It allowed governments and companies to sue other governments if their business plans or environmental laws were considered unprofitable. From Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
(a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
(b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

This clause has caused all sorts of headaches in the name of “free trade”. (See Free Trade #2 for more details). No longer are there countries, but merely “economic zones”. In the case of NAFTA

5. “National Treatment”, Article 9, T.P.P.

Now take a look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This was addressed in parts 4 and 5. The U.S., quite sensibly dumped this agreement, but Canada has signed on.

Article 9.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Look familiar? It should. It is virtually the identical language that formed the basis of lawsuits (many successful), in Canada. This can lead to the same issues that still happen in NAFTA, just on a bigger scale.

6. Chapter 2 of Canada/Colombia FTA

Section A – National Treatment
Article 202: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that sub-national government accords to any like, directly competitive or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to the measures set out in Annex 202.

The agreement was signed in November 2008, and been in effect since August 2011.

7. Chapter 3 of Canada/Honduras FTA

Section B – National Treatment
Article 3.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by that sub-national government to a like, directly competitive, or substitutable good of the Party of which it forms a part. For the purposes of this paragraph, “goods of a Party” includes goods produced in the territory of the sub-national government of that Party.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to a measure set out in Annex 3.3.

8. Chapter 2 of Canada/Panama FTA

Section I – National treatment
Article 2.03: National treatment
Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by that sub-national government to a like, directly competitive or substitutable good, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to a measure set out in Annex 2.03 (Exceptions to Articles 2.03 and 2.08).

9. Chapter 2 of Canada/S. Korea FTA

Section A – National Treatment
Article 2.2: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994 and, for greater certainty, its interpretative notes, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 and, for greater certainty, its interpretative notes, or an equivalent provision of a successor agreement to which both Parties are party, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party pursuant to paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment that sub-national government accords to like, directly competitive or substitutable goods of the Party of which it forms a part.
3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to the measures set out in Annex 2-A.

Yes, the wordings here are identical. National treatment is a clause that prevents another country from taking any protectionist measures in order to protect its people.

Why should we care? Because many of these countries Canada has signed agreements with are able to produce goods at a much lower cost. As such, Canadian manufacturers are forced to compete with the third world. This has the effect of outsourcing jobs, and driving down the wages of jobs that remain.

These agreements are just a few. Please go through the more of the index.

10. Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation (Now “CANZUK”)

Note: This initiative is for both free trade, and free movement — a.k.a. erasing borders.

Originally the group was known as the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and were working towards open borders between nations of the British Commonwealth. It was later renamed CANZUK International (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), most likely as it would be an easier sell.

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

Although the rest of the realms are far less developed than their CANZUK counterparts, and while the new partnership wouldn’t act as a sort of transfer union, they would still enjoy a huge range of economic benefits. Unrestricted work and travel, as well as increased investment in transport and communications infrastructure, would make these tropical environments rather more attractive to potential tourists and retirees.

But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

All in all, while some of the future membership candidates do carry some weight, it should be pretty clear that the original CANZUK coalition is by far the most practical place to begin. The innumerable similarities between these four countries is really where the magic of this movement will happen.

At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.

Let’s be clear: the 4 members (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom) are just the starting point. This group has every intention of opening it up to other nations.

Even if there is only the free trade agreement (no replacement migration), it would still be a killer for Canadian jobs. We can’t possibly compete against nations which are able to produce so cheaply.

11. How Does This Help Our People?

As outlined in previous articles, so-called “free trade” agreements end up outsourcing jobs to the 3rd world, which can produce goods much more cheaply.

Jobs that remain are often lower wage, as employers are now forced to compete with far cheaper foreign players. It creates an incentive for even more employers to outsource, further eliminating jobs.

While touted as economic liberty and economy growing, such deals cause havoc to communities. It’s no comfort to people who suddenly find themselves unemployed.

TSCE #2: ”Migrant Caravan” Lawyers Sue For Right to Legally Invade U.S.

(Well organized and well funded economic migrants planning to invade the U.S. en masse. Original videos are here and here.)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings.

2. The Court Challenge

Liberals tend to deflect legitimate questions as ”language”
Liberals and open-border globalists do this regularly. When asked direct questions they usually deflect rather than give direct answers. They don’t challenge the facts, but rather play word games, calling it ”fearful and divisive language”.

Now, to the obvious. These are not refugees at all. They are economic migrants, who are well organized, trying to get into the U.S. This is an invasion, one that has clearly been thought through. As you can see in the videos, they have supplies waiting for them at the end of each day, and for ”refugees”, they look like they have have a good life.

Just when the story couldn’t get more absurd, thehill.com released this article, showing that a lawsuit had actually been filed on behalf of the so-called refugees. Being a class action lawsuit, it opens the door for many more plaintiffs. We will go through the main points.

For this to make any sense, at least 5 completely wrong assertions must be correct:

(1) That everyone in the world has the right to come to the United States and claim asylum. Not to the first safe country available, but to the U.S. specifically.

(2) That the protections of U.S. law, such as the 5th amendment apply to everyone, everywhere. You don’t have to be a citizen, or legal resident, or even on U.S. soil.

(3) That obviously fraudulent claims for asylum must be taken seriously.

(4) That so-called ”refugees” can send their kids ahead and demand the U.S. provide for them. Or even more generally that the U.S. must financially provide for anyone who enters.

(5) That the U.S. does not have the right to have sovereign borders, regardless of security threats.

As an aside, it cannot be overstated that the overwhelming majority are not refugees. Many openly admit they are coming for a better life, and better employment prospects. Further, given the amount of support they have on the journey, and a legal team filing suit in the U.S., the claims are absurd.

3. Claim: Anyone Can Enter U.S.

Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

See the U.S./Canadian safe country agreement as an example. Refugees are expected to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.

This ”caravan” originated in Honduras. The migrants then travelled through Guatemala, making it the country they should have filed for asylum in. But they never did. They then forced their way into Mexico, which would be the second country they arrived in. Mexico in fact offered asylum and work permits, but the offer was rejected.

This group is not seeking a safe country. They are ”shopping” for a richer one, one with more handouts and benefits. They are not refugees, but economic migrants.

As an aside, the same thing is happening in Canada. Our ”Paper Canadian” and FGM apologist of an Immigration Minister, gets offended when people point out that ”refugees” from the U.S. are just economic migrants.

4. Claim: 5th Amendment Applies

Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the Declaratory Judgment Act,
inter alia
.
. The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 7. Personal Jurisdiction is proper because Defendants transact business in this District and thus are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.
Case 1:18-cv-02534 Document 1 Filed 11/01/18 Page 7 of 32
VENUE
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because at least one of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district with regards to this action.

Information on the 5th Amendment is given here, but in laymen’s terms, it provides many legal protections to people.

But here, the lawyers claim that the group, who isn’t even on U.S. soil. It says that they ”transact business” and at least ”one person is subject to personal jurisdiction.” This is incredibly vague, and again, being a class action suit allows for many more plaintiffs to join in.

The U.S. Constitution is meant to provide legal protection to people inside the U.S., preferably there legally. But this argument suggests that anyone wanting to go to the U.S. should get the same protections.

5. Claim: Must Take All Seriously

Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

Immigrants who indicate an intention to apply for asylum or indicates a fear of persecution must be referred for a “credible fear interview”:
.
If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B). 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(1)(A)(ii).
.
Following a credible fear interview, if an asylum officer determines that an asylum seeker has a “credible fear of persecution,” then there is a significant possibility that the asylum seeker will be granted asylum

Many videos of these ”refugees” are available on YouTube. They openly admit that they are going to the United States for economic reasons, such as work and social services. Not having a job, or poor living conditions are not valid grounds for claiming asylum.

Interesting to note: If all these migrants were going to the U.S. for a better life, doesn’t it refute this claim, that so-called refugees coming to Canada from New York or Minnesota are doing so fraudulently?

6. Claim: U.S. Is Obligated To Pay For The Children Of The Invaders

Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

The care and custody of minors in Immigration Custody is controlled by the Flores Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. That agreement applies to all minors, including those who are taken into custody with their parents. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016). That agreement provides that minors must be held in facilities run by licensed programs and that are “safe and sanitary and are consistent with [Defendants’] concern for the particular vulnerability of minors.” Ex. 1, ¶¶ 12.A, 14. These facilities must “provide access to toilets and sinks, drinking water … adequate temperature control and ventilation adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and contact with family.”

While the Flores Agreement does set out certain conditions to be met, it seems that the invading migrants are taking full advantage of it. Arguably the children are being used as weapons, as ways for arm twisting to get more benefits. The adults will of course, demand to be locked up with their children.

The Flores Agreement was never meant to be used as a tool to facilitate mass illegal immigration, but that is exactly what the lawyers are trying to do.

7. Claim: U.S. Has No Border Rights

Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

Interesting claim. The U.S. apparently has no right to defend its own border by this logic. Anyone can come into the country. Anyone can take children and demand free food and accomodation. And it doesn’t matter how many people come, and if it completely overwhelms the immigration system. The rights of America to defend itself don’t seem to matter.

8. How Does This Play Out?

Unclear, at least to me. The lawsuit seems bogus on its face, makes bizarre claims, and is openly contradicted by the ”refugees” themselves.

The invaders’ lawyers repeatedly conflate laws meant to protect people inside the U.S. with those wanting to enter the U.S.

One additional detail, the suit seems to want to cover anyone who will attempt to cross at a later date:

Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class:
All persons (1) who are Mexican, Central American, or South American citizens (2) who are travelling to the United States or have attempted entry into the United States, whether at a designated port of entry or not, since October 31, 2018, and (3) who are seeking asylum or intending to seek asylum within the United States

To be clear, not only will this not be the last ”caravan” to try to enter the U.S., but at least 2 more are up already.

Trump’s best move would be to send as many troops to the border as needed and repel this invasion at all costs. Open fire if need be.

Update to the Story:
By it’s own admission, the United Nations is actually helping the “caravan”. In essence, it is helping the economic migrants INVADE the United States.

The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

The U.N. needs to go entirely. More on that in an upcoming article.

%d bloggers like this: