CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim. CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments. CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal. CLICK HERE, for reply submissions in S3CA appeal.
3. Context Of This Article
This case involves the joint application for judicial review. These cases (for which arguments were just heard in Toronto) involves applicants trying to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement.
If you have been following this site at all, you will know that a challenge has been launched in BC to close the “loophole” in the agreement. This loophole, in effects, allows fake refugees to jump the queue by GOING AROUND official border ports.
4. Gov’t Defends S3CA (In Toronto)
The Canadian government on Friday denied that the rights of any refugees are threatened by a U.S.-Canada agreement that compels asylum seekers trying to cross the border into Canada to first apply for sanctuary in the United States.
Under the Safe Third Country Agreement between the two neighbours, asylum seekers at a formal border crossing traveling in either direction are turned back and told to apply for asylum in the country they first arrived in.
Lawyers for unnamed refugees who had been turned away at the Canadian border are challenging the agreement, saying the United States does not qualify as a “safe” country under U.S. President Donald Trump.
However, the Canadian government argued in its submission that its “continued reliance on the regime is lawful and meets its Charter and international law obligations.”
“There’s no rights at stake here,” government lawyer Lucian Gregory told the federal court.
The court challenge comes as Canada seeks to stem the human tide of asylum seekers that has flowed into the country over the past three years. Trump was elected in 2016 after promising in his campaign to crack down on illegal immigration.
That’s right. The Trudeau Government tells a Toronto Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect its borders, and does not discriminate on any human rights grounds.
Also, that same Government is telling a Vancouver Court that the Plaintiff/Moving Party has no right to attempt to close the loophole in the agreement.
In case any real journalists would like to learn more about the cases, these are the names and court files of the people involved.
MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET AL
Court File: #IMM-775-17
NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFAv. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17
THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR RFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2977-17
5. Gov’t: Open Court Needed (Toronto)
An interesting development in the case: The Federal Government opposed efforts by these “refugee claimants” to have their names redacted. In that case, only their initials would have been posted. The Government — in this case — values having an open court system.
6. Gov’t: No Loophole In S3CA (Vancouver)
These quotes are from the Government’s Motion to Strike, filed on May 22, 2019. In short, the lawyer claimed that since I was not a refugee claimant, I had no real interest or stake in the matter. Furthermore, there apparently was no loophole, and this poor wording was written in intentionally.
7. Rule 221: Motions To Strike
Striking Out Pleadings
Motion to strike
221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be,
(b) is immaterial or redundant,
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action, (e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,
and may order the action be dismissed or judgment entered accordingly.
(2) No evidence shall be heard on a motion for an order under paragraph (1)(a).
From the Federal Court Rules. Now, I am no expert on the matter, but filing contradictory, or at least incoherent or illogical pleadings should be grounds to strike out a defense. We shall see how it goes.
8. Two Courts, Two Priorities
The above is only a snapshot of what is going on, but the point should be clear. The Government is telling the Toronto Court that the Safe Third Country Agreement is necessary to protect our borders, and that not anyone can just walk in.
By contrast, that same Government is telling a Vancouver Court that there is no loophole to worry about, and that private citizens have no right to demand they enforce our laws and borders.
(EPI on free trade & mass migration removing bargaining power)
(EPI on responding to currency manipulation with tariffs)
(EPI on 3.4M jobs lost to China)
(CPC policies are to: create new immigration pilot programs, transition “temps” to permanent residents where possible)
(CPC policy is also implementation of CANZUK)
(Tucker Carlson on foreign replacements at Uber getting preferential treatment. He also calls out Charlie Kirk’s “stapling green cards to diplomas” line)
1. Important Links
In This Series CLICK HERE, for a previous review of CANZUK. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #1, thoughts on Canada-China free trade. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #2, intro to NAFTA, problems involved. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #3: more on NAFTA’s hidden costs. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #5, why Donald Trump dumped the T.P.P. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #6, outsourcing Canada’s industries. CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #7, professional outsourcing, stagnant wages, mass migration.
Other Reviews On CDN Immigration CLICK HERE, for mass/replacement migration at 1M/year in Canada. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration programs in Canada. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04. CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence. CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program. CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain. CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment. CLICK HERE, for CANZUK (Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Org). CLICK HERE, for TD article on true scale of replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for student visas — pathway to PR. CLICK HERE, for start up visas — purchase PR status
Free Trade/Mass Migration Research CLICK HERE, for U.S. Census, most STEM grads don’t work in STEM. CLICK HERE, for the myth of the STEM shortage. CLICK HERE, for EPI: STEM shortage a manufactured crisis. CLICK HERE, for EPI: rise in temporary labour wave. CLICK HERE, for CDN Gov’t splits up TFWP. CLICK HERE, for free trade, US trade deficit with China. CLICK HERE, for trade deficits caused by NAFTA. CLICK HERE, for EPI: free trade is driving down wages. CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on wage stagnation. CLICK HERE, for EPI: extra costs from globalization. CLICK HERE, for tariffs levied on currency manipulation. CLICK HERE, for EPI: 3.4M jobs lost to China. CLICK HERE, for T.P.P.: National Treatment
2. Context For This Article
True, the content of this site is primarily focused on Canada. However, the issues that face the United States are similar. What happens over there spills over here, and there is lots of data available on it.
There are 2 linked concepts to discuss:
Mass Economic Immigration
Free Trade Agreements
How are these ideas linked? Because they are 2 ends of the same problem. Mass economic immigration involves importing large numbers of people into a country. It leads to a much higher supply of workers, and more competition for the same jobs. As a result, it helps drive down wages as it becomes an employer’s market. It INCREASES the demand for jobs in developed countries. Free trade works by exporting jobs and entire industries to other nations where the work can be done for less. In other words, it DECREASES the supply of local jobs available. Now combine them.
MORE competition + LESS work = disaster.
For the purposes of this article, concerns that the U.S. has can be viewed as happening (or at risk to happen) in Canada as well.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a left leaning think tank in Washington. Among the topics it covers are free trade and immigration. EPI points out repeatedly that there are high social costs to the conservative or libertarian policies. Let’s get into it.
3. STEM Field Is Glutted
The U.S. Census Bureau reported today that 74 percent of those who have a bachelor’s degree in science, technology, engineering and math — commonly referred to as STEM — are not employed in STEM occupations.
“STEM graduates have relatively low unemployment, however these graduates are not necessarily employed in STEM occupations,” said Liana Christin Landivar, a sociologist in the Census Bureau’s Industry and Occupation Statistics Branch.
According to new statistics from the 2012 American Community Survey, engineering and computer, math and statistics majors had the largest share of graduates going into a STEM field with about half employed in a STEM occupation. Science majors had fewer of their graduates employed in STEM. About 26 percent of physical science majors; 15 percent of biological, environmental and agricultural sciences majors; 10 percent of psychology majors; and 7 percent of social science majors were employed in STEM.
These numbers are shocking. It speaks volumes about the state of education when half (or more) of STEM graduates aren’t even employed in fields relating to their studies.
The EPI report tends to focus on the relevance of these findings to guest worker programs and other immigration issues. The tech industry has long suggested that it cannot find STEM workers in America and therefore needs immigration changes that will enable it to bring in more workers from abroad. Skeptics have rebuffed that the tech industry really is just interested in cheaper STEM labor and that its proclamations about a dearth of STEM-qualified domestic workers is just a convenient cover story. This report provides ammunition to the latter camp to say the least.
It’s a long repeated myth that the United States (and Canada too) cannot find qualified STEM people. Strange, as there are so many of them coming out of schools. But the real issue seems to be finding “cheaper” workers.
Contrary to its report and public statements, Microsoft (and other employers in STEM fields) already have plenty of avenues to hire and retain new foreign graduates to work in STEM occupations. Recent research suggesting that the most highly educated graduates in STEM fields are in fact remaining in the United States for the long term supports this conclusion. Keeping the best and brightest foreign STEM workers in the United States to fill labor shortages in STEM occupations should be a national priority, but recent data show that no significant labor shortages exist, and suggest that an adequate number of foreign graduates in STEM fields are already remaining in the United States to fill the limited job openings available in the stagnating U.S. labor market.
The EPI study claims there is no shortage of tech workers available, and that rather this is a manufactured crisis used to bring in even more people. Why? To drive down wages. U.S. workers will often be willing to work for less if they know it’s easy to replace them. And if need be, just replace them anyway.
4. “Temporary” Workers Depressing Wages
What appears to be a neat match between excess labor supply in some countries and unfulfilled demand in others is often messy in practice. Economics teaches that there are often alternative ways of producing goods and services, so that recruiting and hiring migrant workers is only one option available to firms and employers. The alternatives may include making jobs more attractive to local workers, using labor-saving mechanization, or increasing imports. Employers who approach governments for permission to hire migrant workers have usually decided that employing migrant workers is their best or least expensive option, and the question for governments is whether to permit employers to hire migrants and to determine how to regulate the movement and employment of migrant workers.
The major policy question for governments weighing claims of labor shortages is whether they should allow naturally occurring wage changes to balance labor supply and demand when employers complain of labor shortages, or whether they should use migration policy to admit new workers into the country to address shortages. And if governments decide to admit new migrant workers, the next question that arises is what the terms and conditions of their admission should be. For example, should new migrant workers be admitted as permanent immigrants with freedom in the labor market or as temporary workers who are tied to a particular employer? In recent decades, many governments have chosen the latter, leading to a proliferation of TLMPs.
Many countries have youth exchange programs to facilitate cultural exchanges and promote development in poorer countries (Table 1, row 4). Japan allows employers to hire trainees who work and learn for several years, while the J-1 visa program in the United States allows exchange visitors to work while learning about the United States and traveling, for a few months to a few years, depending on the program. Australia has a Working Holiday Maker program that allows youth from many countries to work to earn money to cover the cost of their vacation in the country. While these are not standard TLMPs, they are included in Table 1 because some of these programs have been criticized as operating mainly as employment rather than cultural exchange programs and, as a sort of “TLMP in disguise,” offering few protections for local workers and fewer protections and benefits for migrants than traditional TLMPs (Costa 2011; Stewart 2015; Osumi 2018).
Other rationales for TLMPs include allowing multinational corporations and firms to move employees between offices and subsidiary companies in different countries. These mobile workers include intra-company or intra-corporate transferees (ICTs), and “posted” workers, who are workers employed by a company in one country who are sent or posted to work in another. As with other programs not linked explicitly to labor shortages, governments usually allow multinational corporations to move managers and workers with specialized skills from one country to another with minimum bureaucracy. However, abuses have arisen, and some employers wind up using ICTs and posted workers as low-cost guest workers because the programs sometimes lack prevailing wage rules, or the ICT or posted-worker wages are exempt from all or some payroll taxes (Avalos 2014; Flinders 2011).
I would disagree with this report in one area: the notion that these are temporary workers. The reality is that people are staying longer and longer, and many transitioning into permanent residents. So the temporary label is somewhat misleading.
In Canada, the Temporary Foreign Worker was loudly criticized for replacing Canadians with cheap foreign labour. The response was to split up the TFWP, and to boost the International Mobility Program (which was basically an open work permit). This was a cosmetic solution that didn’t address the real problem.
EPI points out that a lot of these temporary positions pay less and have less job security. That is true. The response will be to enshrine ever more rights on these “temporary” workers. EPI is also correct that a lot of the support behind increasing these programs is the cheaper labour that results from it.
5. Remittances Sent Abroad
This was covered in a previous article, but what about the money that gets sent overseas by “temporary” workers in this country? It is billions every year.
Aside from welfare cases (which is another story), yes the wages were fairly earned. But it is disingenuous to exclude this fact from the debate. Economic immigration leads to money being sent outside the country.
6. Free Trade, Soaring Trade Deficits
The rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China is directly linked to the growth of multinational firms operating in China. Of China’s more than $200 billion in exports in 1998, over 40% had their source in multinational firms operating in China (Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 2000).
• The activities of U.S. multinational firms, together with China’s protectionist trade policies, have had a significant role in increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China. A 10% increase in the level of U.S. direct investment in an industry in China is associated with a 7.3% increase in the volume of U.S. imports from China and a 2.1% decline in U.S. exports to China in that industry. • Supporters of China’s WTO and PNTR agenda typically assert that jobs lost to China trade threaten only low-skill, low-wage jobs in the United States, while expanded exports to China will create high-wage U.S. jobs. However, the changing composition of imports from China over the last 10 years has led increasingly to job losses among higher-wage and more-skilled U.S. manufacturing workers. Although in 1989 only 30% of imports from China competed against goods produced by high-wage industries in the U.S. market, by 1999 that percentage had risen to 50%.  To make matters worse, although U.S. workers are five times as productive as their Chinese counterparts, average compensation in the United States is at least 10 and maybe even 20 times larger than that paid by U.S. multinationals to Chinese workers. Thus, U.S. workers will be unable to compete with the much cheaper labor in China despite their higher levels of productivity. U.S. firms build export-oriented production base in China
Trade between the U.S. and China is not a level playing field, to put it mildly. Hypocritically, China relies on its own protectionist measures while doing what it can to secure access to U.S. markets. And because many of the U.S. corporate leaders put profit over well being of their people, they are quite happy to outsource U.S. to China. Products get made cheaper, but American workers pay with their jobs and livelihoods. Of course, this is not limited to one country. NAFTA caused the same problems.
In addition to the lost jobs, this creates a huge trade deficit, where hundreds of billions of dollars leave the U.S. annually. Certainly there will always be some surpluses and deficits in trading internationally. But it can’t be so one sided as it is simply unsustainable.
7. Free Trade Driving Down Wages
A standard model estimating the impact of trade on American wages indicates that growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent—or by roughly $1,800—for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year college degree. One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China.
Trade with low-wage countries can explain roughly a third of the overall rise since 1979 in the wage premium earned by workers with at least a four-year college degree relative to those without one. However, trade with low-wage countries explains more than 90 percent of the rise in this premium since 1995.
For full-time wage earners without a college degree, annual earnings losses due to trade with low-wage nations are larger than income losses under a hypothetical policy that permanently extends the Bush-era tax cuts by making across-the-board cuts to government transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance.
Free trade has hurt the middle class more than anyone else. Manufacturing was a booming industry that people — mainly men — could earn a decent living even without higher education. However, profit driven corporations have outsourced more and more of that manufacturing, leaving those worker to fight for lower paying jobs.
The topic of wage stagnation has also been covered by Pew Research. If wages stay the same, or decrease, but inflation remains, then real buying power decreases.
Serious question: how much will it help these companies in the end when no one can afford to buy their products?
8. Free Trade Removes Bargaining Power
The textbook analysis of the effects of trade on wage suppression discussed earlier assume that these effects run through trade flows that shift the relative demand for different types of labor. But trade’s effects on wages could run through other channels as well. After all, in the real world, wages are not set in perfectly competitive labor markets solely through shifts in demand and supply curves. Rather, the relative bargaining power of employers and employees matters greatly for wage-setting, and the threat effects of growing globalization surely hamstring this bargaining power for many American workers. In previous eras, the only fallback position for employers in the face of a breakdown in wage bargaining was to stop production. Now employers have the option of setting up production facilities abroad. This improved fallback position boosts employers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis their American employees, and this can lead to substantial downward pressure on wages.
As is always the case, measuring bargaining power at all, let alone its ebb and fall, is difficult, so the precise empirical impact of this channel of globalization’s wage-suppressing effects is hard to gauge. But there is growing evidence that these effects could be significant. Bertrand (2004), for example, shows that import competition tears down the protection that incumbent workers’ wages have traditionally enjoyed against rising unemployment. Senses (2007) finds that offshoring is associated with greater elasticity of labor demand—implying that wage gains will cut more sharply into employment gains. Bivens (2006) finds evidence that industry-level rent-sharing is eroded by growing import shares. Jayadev (2007) finds capital account openness associated with a shift from labor to capital income shares across countries, and attributes this finding to the bargaining channel. Anderson, Tang, and Wood (2006) construct a model of globalization eroding American workers’ privileged access to institutional and human capital and lowering wages through this channel. They find empirically that greater ease of movement of high-credential, high-skill managers leads to wage declines for American labor, supporting the predictions of their model.
To clarify, this article faults both the mass migration policies and free trade policies in creating these problems. In both cases, it becomes a race to the bottom. Either we import a replacement workforce here, or we export the work to the foreign labour force. The result is much the same.
It is also pointed out that collective bargaining and other rights get eroded once the option to replace the workforce becomes practical. So much for looking after your own.
9. Tariffs V.S. Currency Manipulation
According to Scott, Trump’s proposals fail to effectively address currency manipulation, the single largest cause of manufacturing job loss over the past 20 years. While Trump cites currency manipulation as a major problem, Scott argues, his strategy for dealing with it—calling for higher tariffs on imports from currency manipulators and promising to negotiate “better” trade deals—doesn’t reflect an analytical understanding of how currency manipulation works and what to do about it.
“Trump could not, as pledged, bring back American manufacturing jobs by negotiating ‘great trade deals’ because he doesn’t understand why globalization and trade and investment deals have hurt U.S. workers,” said Scott.
Trump’s plan to deal with currency manipulation by imposing tariffs would make other countries’ goods more expensive in the United States but do nothing to make U.S. goods less expensive in those countries. Scott recommends that the Fed conduct countervailing currency intervention (CCI) by buying up large amounts of foreign assets denominated in the currencies of the surplus countries, and impose a “market access charge,” a tax or fee on all capital inflows that would reduce the demand for dollar-denominated assets and hence the value of the currency.
It’s nice to see currency manipulation being addressed. Of course, if one or more parties plays games with their currency, they can in effect create products dirt cheap. They won’t have to worry about massive imports, since other nations won’t be able to undercut their manipulated prices.
Trump seems to have a fight-fire-with-fire mentality, but it doesn’t really work when others are not willing to act in good faith.
10. Free Trade Wrecks Communities
The growth of the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2017 was responsible for the loss of 3.4 million U.S. jobs, including 1.3 million jobs lost since 2008 (the first full year of the Great Recession, which technically began at the end of 2007). Nearly three-fourths (74.4 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2017 were in manufacturing (2.5 million manufacturing jobs lost).
The growing trade deficit with China has cost jobs in all 50 states and in every congressional district in the United States. The 10 hardest-hit states, when looking at job loss as a share of total state employment, were New Hampshire, Oregon, California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Texas. Job losses in these states ranged from 2.57 percent (in Texas) to 3.55 percent (in New Hampshire) of total state employment. The five hardest-hit states based on total jobs lost were California (562,500 jobs lost), Texas (314,000), New York (183,500), Illinois (148,200), and Pennsylvania (136,100).
The trade deficit in the computer and electronic parts industry grew the most: 1,209,000 jobs were lost in that industry, accounting for 36.0 percent of the 2001–2017 total jobs lost. Not surprisingly, the hardest-hit congressional districts (those ranking in the top 20 districts in terms of jobs lost as a share of all jobs in the district) included districts in Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Texas, where jobs in that industry are concentrated. A district in Georgia and another in North Carolina were also especially hard hit by trade-related job displacement in a variety of manufacturing industries, including computer and electronic parts, textiles and apparel, and furniture.
Between 2001 and 2011 alone, growing trade deficits with China reduced the incomes of directly impacted workers by $37 billion per year, and in 2011 alone, growing competition with imports from China and other low wage-countries reduced the wages of all U.S. non–college graduates by a total of $180 billion. Most of that income was redistributed to corporations in the form of higher profits and to workers with college degrees at the very top of the income distribution through higher wages.
Trade with China has caused an estimated 3.4 million jobs to be lost from 2001 to 2017. These job losses have hit every state, and every community.
Directly impacted workers lost $37 billion in wages, and non-college graduates $180 billion overall. How is this at all desirable, or even sustainable to keep driving down wages and incomes? How is outsourcing many of the better paying jobs good for the host country?
Again, it doesn’t matter how cheaply China (or other 3rd world nations) can build their products. If no one can afford to buy them, then they won’t sell.
11. Loss Of Sovereignty
This has been addressed in other posts, but nearly all free trade deals contain a “National Treatment” Clause. In plain English, these clauses prohibit nations from taking any measures to protect jobs or industries. Canada has ben successfully sued for doing so in the past.
Allowing large numbers of people into the country, causing extra demand for work and driving down wages doesn’t help. And we haven’t even gotten into cultural compatibility. Nor the money removed from the economy when vast sums of remittances are sent abroad.
Nor does outsourcing our industries and jobs to the 3rd World help us. Sure, products get made cheaper, but these offshoring kills people’s livelihoods. And what good is all of the formal education received if the jobs that should have resulted are sent away?
Mass economic migration and free trade are two sides of the same coin. The effects are much the same. But you won’t hear conservatives or libertarians talk about this. Ironically, more left leaning political parties are inclined to address such topics.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: UN blurs line, smuggling v.s. “irregular”. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #7: UN research into human smuggling (cont’d) CLICK HERE, for TSCE #8: UN hypocrisy on sexual and child abuse.
2. Why Follow These Accounts?
I don’t normally recommend specific accounts to follow, but this is a truly exceptional case. The account holder is obviously dedicated to raising awareness on the issue. Paula has been posting consistently for the last year and a half.
Despite efforts to keep this buried, wide spread abuse, exploitation and trafficking of children is still rampant today. It is the dirty secret that a lot of people wish would just go away. And far from being nobodies doing it, these crimes are committed by very powerful people in society.
Any real journalists in Canada, the United States, (or elsewhere) should be interested and concerned with this. Anyone can cover Justin Trudeau and the stupid things he says. Real research and journalism involves getting into the topics that few (or no one else) will.
Also a worth mention is Titus Frost 1984 (Splitting Truth With Titus). He covers a variety of topics, but has several lengthy videos on the topic of human trafficking and smuggling. Also see his Twitter account.
3. Invitation To Readers Of This Site
If you know of other media outlets (Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc…) that are devoted to this topic, and post good content, please let me know. They will be added as references.
(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)
(UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)
(UN High Commission on Refugees)
(UN insists terrorists be allowed to return home)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: UN blurs line between smuggling & “irregular”.
CLICK HERE, for UNODC on smuggling migrants. CLICK HERE, for a UN guide in circumventing the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for UN guide: details on S3CA loopholes. CLICK HERE, for UN insisting terrorists be repatriated. CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal mass invasion (caravans) into the U.S., despite knowing it is unwanted and illegal. CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.
2. Context For This Article
This is a continuation to the last article, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. While the basics were laid out before, there is so much more detail to be included. In fact, the UN has done a surprising amount of research on this topic.
Yet they seem to have learned nothing from this research, or the results are being deliberately ignored.
To reiterate from last time: it is extremely hypocritical for the UN to claim that they are AGAINST smuggling and trafficking of people, yet SUPPORT mass illegal entries (which they minimize as “irregular”).
The connection between “irregulars” (or illegal aliens) and smuggling is straight forward. Human smugglers are the people who facilitate and coordinate these mass movements of people. They directly cause these “irregulars”, which the UN demands Western nations provide for. However, the UN, and other groups condemn the smuggling that is at the heart of it. The illegal aliens themselves are willing participants.
The difference between traffickers and smugglers is one of consent. Smugglers take people against their will. While victims of trafficking are not to blame for their situation, they are not legal immigrants either. And calling them “irregulars” deliberately blurs the line here.
A cynic may wonder if the UN is speaking out both sides of its mouth: demanding that Western nations take hoards of people from the 3rd World, all while pretending to reject the smuggling that at least facilitates this mass invasion.
2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons
2.1.1 Irregular migration
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration.
In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents.
Yes, this has been brought up before, but it is designed to hammer the point home. Smuggling of people across borders is directly connected to the “irregular migration” that occurs at the end. It is the end result of these actions which show no respect for national borders or sovereignty. The UN review is rather blunt on the subject.
4. Smuggling As A Business Model
2.2 Conceptualization of smuggling of migrants
2.2.1 Smuggling as an illegal migration business
The conceptualization of smuggling as a migration business was formally developed by Salt and Stein in 1997, even if one may find reference to this theory in earlier literature. This new interpretation of the smuggling phenomenon had a great influence on academic circles, and the concept was then borrowed by many academics. In a critical analysis of this concept, Herman stresses that the focus of expert discussions then revolved around the notion of a migration industry and its professionalization, in which migrants are seen as “products” and “people who aid migrants are called ‘smugglers’, and are portrayed as illegal ‘entrepreneurs’”
Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both
legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.
The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.
In some sense, this is quite obvious. Of course smuggling and trafficking are businesses, where the commodity being shipped is the people.
However, the solution seems almost designed to fail. Let’s focus on the institutions themselves and not the migrants?! If the migrants want what they view as a “better life” in Western nations, the demand will remain high. And as long as there is a demand, with customers willing to pay, then there will be people willing to take the risks.
The migration business theory seems still to be dominant in the literature analysing smuggling trends in North America, South-east Asia and the Pacific region, where smugglers are portrayed as “migration merchants”, while the smuggled migrants are considered clients paying for a service. However, it seems that academic views have evolved recently, with a greater number of authors, such as Zhang and Herman, looking at the role of family members and social networks in the smuggling process. While still endorsing the “migration business” theory, authors such as Doomernik and Kyle call for a more nuanced approach, as the empirical reality includes a mix of people with both altruistic and profit-making goals. empirical research led by Van liempt and Doomernik in the Netherlands in 2003 and 2004 looked at how smugglers of migrants may depict themselves as serving migrants rather than as profit-makers, despite the fees involved. equally, migrants may not use the word “smugglers” when they talk about the person who “helped” them. According to Aranowitz, the “mother of All Snakeheads”—a major Chinese smuggler is probably the symbol of the dual reality of smuggling of migrants, as she was a revered figure in New York’s Chinatown and considered a saint for “reuniting families”.
While this is interesting on some level, it does not change the basic reality. Helping to get people illegally into other countries is smuggling, regardless of whether it is driven by profit or humanitarian reasons.
5. Data From Interviews
3.2 Qualitative methodologies
3.2.1 Interviews with smuggled migrants
Qualitative information can be extracted from various sources. For example, it can be the outcome of fact-finding missions carried out by researchers in source, transit and/or destination countries, involving interviews with actors in and witnesses of the smuggling process (migrants, migrants’ relatives and smugglers). The collection of direct information seems to be the most problematic, and research projects often require a combination of sources, such as interviews and police and court files.
Researchers may face difficulties in interviewing smuggled migrants and persons directly involved in the smuggling process. According to Düvell, Triandafyllidou and Vollmer, migrants are reluctant to participate, as they fear retaliation from smugglers and are also afraid that the information provided might be used against them and lead to deportation. Collyer, however, insists on the difficulties of getting a representative sample and of carrying out a proper interview, given the interviewees’ living conditions. Owing to these constraints, the interview technique varies greatly: while some researchers carry out observation in police stations or shelters, others conduct interviews on the basis of a standard questionnaire. Some academics use a mix of interviews and observations.
According to Heckmann, smuggled persons tend to cooperate in interviews when basic conditions are met, such as respect for anonymity, or when the interviewer is a person who comes from the same community as the smuggled person. Smuggled migrants may want to speak out of frustration with the smugglers or, after having achieved safe status, for political reasons. According to Bilecen, command of the migrant’s native language seems to be an imperative asset, together with being from the same community. Given the reluctance of smuggled migrants and smugglers, some authors have used tricks such as enrolling as social workers at the reception centre of Sangatte (France) or pretending to be irregular migrants.
Pretending to be a social worker or a fellow illegal is actually an interesting tactic. True, it is deception. But the entire presence and transport of these smuggled illegal aliens is based on deception, so it can be viewed as fighting fire with fire.
Of course getting direct information can be tricky. The entire point of these smuggling operations is …. wait for it …. to smuggle people. Giving direct and honest information can lead to their deportation, and to possible criminal charges as well.
Sure, speaking the same language can go a long way. Anyone familiar with police interrogations will tell you that having a connection with a suspect will help you get information.
3.2.2 Interviews with smugglers
There is a lack of research focusing on the smugglers’ perspectives that would allow insight into the subjective dimension of the phenomenon. According to Neske, this gap is understandable since smugglers are not interested in exposing themselves to publicity or law enforcement.
Yes, this is pretty obvious.
Now, let’s address some estimates about the size and scale of human smuggling and trafficking across borders.
6. Scope Of Int’l Smuggling
4. The scope of smuggling of migrants
Bearing in mind the methodological limitations on estimating the movement of smuggled migrants in the broader context of irregular migration, this chapter will outline quantitative information about the extent of smuggling of migrants with a focus on sub-regions and key countries. This information is scattered and/or imprecise for two reasons. Firstly, reports often mix up statistics on and refer interchangeably to irregular migration, trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants. Secondly, quantitative assessments are limited mainly to smuggling towards industrialized Western countries, while intraregional movements in the southern hemisphere are largely ignored.
This chapter then looks at the current state of knowledge regarding smuggling routes. The literature reviewed reveals a dual perspective. On the one hand, the “traditional” view holds that all smuggling trends are converging towards the industrialized Western States. This perspective is dominant in the literature published in the early 1990s. On the other hand, more recent research shows that smuggling routes are far more diverse and that Western-centric views may not accurately represent the complex dynamics of smuggling of migrants. In any case, the routes outlined below provide only an overview of smuggling routes as described in the literature. Further details about the organization of sea, air and land movements are provided in chapter 9.
The report says that “irregular migrants” (who are really illegal aliens) get mixed up with people who are smuggled and trafficked. It seems that the authors are the ones contributing to this problem. They repeatedly try to make a distinction where none exists.
Part of the assumption that illegals head to Western nations is the fact that they have the best social programs. They also have lawyers and others who work hard to circumvent national laws. Heading to the West offers the best rate of return in most cases.
It will be interesting to read onward and see where these additional routes are. True, there is the belief that smuggling and trafficking heads mostly here.
The report spends some time giving estimates of the number of illegals in various regions. However, it is clear that these are estimates (often conflicting estimates) and that they have few real answers.
7. Profile Of Smuggled Migrants
5.1 General profile of smuggled migrants
5.1.1 Social and educational background
According to figures in the IOM World Migration Report 2008, the vast majority of migrants around the world are young people, including a great proportion of underage persons. many developing countries have very young populations: in most African countries and many in Asia, about half of the population is under the age of 14. As stressed by Doomernik and Kyle, such countries encourage their young people to emigrate since they are facing severe underemployment and unemployment. Some authors have considered the role of State authorities—in particular in the Philippines and Spain—in migrant-exporting schemes. Although there are no consolidated global figures on the age pyramid of smuggled migrants, the figures shown by regional research tend to confirm that smuggled migrants are usually recruited from the young population.
There are diverging views about the social and educational backgrounds of smuggled migrants. According to authors such as Aronowitz, smuggled persons are usually the most disadvantaged in their own countries, with poor job skills or little chance of successful employment at home. They are often women and children, as shown by the smuggling and trafficking patterns in countries in eastern and Central Europe and West Africa. According to IOM, research on the profile of persons using the service of smugglers in Central Asia would present similar characteristics.
We are getting some honesty here, and it undermines a major narrative of the asylum pushers. A large amount of people claiming to be refugees fleeing persecution are actually economic migrants seeking a better life. While it is understandable that people want to make better lives for themselves, it does not translate into a “right” to migrate.
8. Profile Of Smugglers Themselves
6. Profiles of smugglers of migrants
The main objective of this chapter is to look at the social background of smugglers of migrants and their motivations. It will highlight the similarities and differences in the profiles of smugglers in different parts of the world. Because of the lack of information and the diversity of situations, the present review refrains from drawing general conclusions about the social and educational background of the persons involved in migrant-smuggling activities. Regional profiles of smugglers will be established according to analyses of law enforcement activities or information gathered directly from smugglers. Complementary information is provided in chapter 9.
There is a striking lack of information regarding the profile of smugglers. Scholars’ views can be divided into a criminological and a sociological perspective. The information about the smugglers is based mainly on police and court records and, to a lesser extent, on interviews with migrants. Some recent research includes a psychological perspective, including interviews with the smugglers about their motivations and background. Research based on interviews with smugglers should be further developed, as it provides subjective insight into the migrant-smuggling phenomenon
There are a lot of generalities in this. But a few conclusions from the chapter:
(a) Smugglers never give the full truth about their operations, as it would lead to the authorities easily disrupting them.
(b) Greatest trust happens when smuggler and their “migrants” come from the same communities and speak the same language.
(c) Some do it purely for money, and others are driven — at least partly — by altruistic reasons. It seems to act as a self-rationalization.
9. Organizational Details Of Smuggling
8. Organizational structures of smuggling networks
This chapter considers typologies of organizational structures and actors involved in
migrant-smuggling activities and highlight similarities and differences in the organizational
structures of smuggling networks in different parts of the world. It then looks into details of how smugglers are organized in different parts of the world and reviews information about factors that influence the way smugglers are organized and elements that guide their evolution. Finally, it reviews information available to determine whether migrant-smuggling markets are increasingly dominated by transnational organizations.
8.1 General analysis of organizational structures of smuggling networks
8.1.1 Typology of structures
From a general standpoint, the literature has taken a great interest in the organizational structure of smuggling networks. Intergovernmental organizations and national administrations have published or sponsored research on this issue in order to increase the capacity to investigate and prosecute smuggling-related offences. The literature reviewed shows that smuggling of migrants can take many organizational forms, as indicated by the great diversity of concepts used to describe it. According to Heckmann, the methodology presented in the literature on smuggling of migrants is rather weak and often uses vague and ad hoc concepts, such as “the smuggling industry”, “migrant merchants”, “mom and pop smugglers” and “organized crime”.
Sources reviewed reveal a great disparity in the quantity and the quality of information about the organization of smuggling networks. Few regions have been researched, and there is often a critical lack of comprehensive and up-to-date research available. Specific research has not been carried out in North and West African countries; and investigative and judicial data from european sources have been used. Further research should be developed in order to get a more comprehensive understanding of the organization of smuggling networks around the world.
Some useful information is contained in the chapter.
While there are areas that are under researched, it may be that the methods used are similar to those that are more documented in other nations. After all, how many techniques can there be that are totally novel?
10. Human & Social Costs
10.1 Human costs
The literature reviewed is highly critical of the law enforcement strategy currently deployed at the maritime borders of EU, which is deemed to be both inefficient in preventing irregular migration and inhumane towards the migrants. According to Spijkerboer, increased border controls have led to the loss of more lives, and further tightening of external EU borders will intensify this trend. Heckmann stresses that improved border control measures have contributed to establishing a low-cost segment of the market, in which smugglers endanger the health and lives of the smuggled migrants. This opinion is shared by authors such as Carling, monzini, eylemer and Şemşit, to name but a few.
10.2 Social costs The literature reviewed provides little information on the social costs of smuggling of migrants, except in respect of Africa. The high failure rate of internal journeys in Africa seems to indicate that, in many situations, migration can drain local resources and leave the country of origin and the communities of co-nationals abroad even more impoverished than before. most migrants depart with the savings of their family and loans from friends, making their migration a long-term investment. If they find themselves in difficulty during the trip, they ask for more money and often have it transferred in order to pay for later stages of the journey. The sums, for the country of origin, are often very high and dry up the family economy for years. Therefore, according to Beneduce, in recent decades the geography of migration has changed, and the geography of humanitarian problems recently associated with irregular migration (poverty, exploitation, segregation and abuse) is changing as well. many of the migrants or asylum-seekers caught between the economic demands of the smugglers and a permanent fear of being arrested and deported by the authorities, are impoverished and become “stranded”.
This is one of the main arguments against immigration in general. What happens to those other nations when the wealthy and able people leave? What happens when their family wealth is drained?
As for the costs, one piece of the puzzle is left out: what about those 1st world nations who are now forced to cope with large numbers of “refugees” or “irregular migrants” who have been smuggled in? The nations never invited them, and the people never gave any democratic mandate.
11. Final Thoughts On Report
Let’s start with the obvious question: for all the research that has been done, why doesn’t the UN do more to prevent illegal crossings? Instead, they do all they can to facilitate mass, illegal invasions and force host nations to cope.
Another thing to address: prosecuting or punishing smugglers is to be expected, but why should these migrants get a pass? If they are willingly participating, then they are accomplices. It is selfish to effectively reward such a system.
Why does the UN keep repeating the “refugee” lie, when its own research concludes that it is mainly economic migrants looking for better opportunity? The UN appears to be willingly complicit in this industry.
How would agreements like the UN Global Migration Compact impact this issue? Is the UN oblivious, or this a deliberate attempt to make human smuggling easier? Remember what is in it:
(Objective 4) Ensure migrants have identity papers
(Objective 5) Enhance pathways for migration
(Objective 11) Manage borders in “integrated” manner
(Objective 13) Detention only as a last resort
(Objective 15) Provide basic services for all migrants
(Objective 17) Educating media, censorship
(Objective 20) Make remittances easier/cheaper to send
(Objective 22) Forced to pay out pensions, social benefits
This UN treaty only makes it easier to smuggle people into countries like Canada. After all, if we are required to provide social benefits, can’t lock them up, and can’t even criticize it, then what will discourage it?
(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)
1. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue. CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence, exploitation of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for the link from the UNHCR. CLICK HERE, for other UN guidelines on how to exploit loophole in S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for review of abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for review of World Border Congress. CLICK HERE, for review, suing for right to enter US illegally. CLICK HERE, for review on “sanctuary” cities. CLICK HERE, for true scale of illegals in U.S.: 22M? CLICK HERE, for start up of amnesty program in Canada. CLICK HERE, for challenge dismissed in closing loophole in S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal entry into the US. CLICK HERE, for link to the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for Government of Canada info on S3CA.
2. The Loophole Written Into S3CA
EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.
The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.
Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.: -at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.
This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry.
3. More Loopholes In S3CA
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.
Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.
Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.
Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.
Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?
4. UNHCR Is A Party To S3CA
CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.
Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?
5. UN Supports Caravans Into U.S.
For a walk down memory lane, let’s review what the U.N. was up to in the Fall of 2018.
“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.
In coordination with UN refugee agency UNHCR, he said “we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees, and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns,” he added.
Counting on its Mesoamerica Program – funded by the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration – IOM is now also able to provide voluntary return assistance to migrants.
“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America and the Caribbean explained, saying the “mixed migration flow” was driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection.
“Nevertheless,” he added, “we are concerned about the stress and demands that caravans place on the humanitarian community and the asylum systems of receiving countries, which ultimately have limited resources to face this challenge or to properly care for and protect migrants.”
According to local authorities, on Monday the Mexican government admitted a second caravan of approximately 1,800 Central Americans who initially started the regularization process, but later opted to continue the trek north without seeking asylum; a third caravan of around 500 Salvadorians crossed in on Tuesday, where most requested asylum; and a fourth group of some 1,700 individuals spent Thursday night in the Guatemalan town of Tecún Umán, on the border with Mexico.
This has been covered in previous articles. The U.N. thinks nothing of coordinating and facilitating massive “caravans” of migrants to dump into the United States, and completely overwhelm their social services and border guards.
The U.N. does not respect the sovereignty of the U.S.’s Southern border. With the above published manual, it becomes clear they don’t support the Northern border either.
6. Border Security Is A Joke
Our agreement with the United States comes with so many exceptions that it is pretty much useless. And if someone doesn’t meet one of the exceptions, they can just fly to New York, and take a cab to Roxham Road. The RCMP will dutifully greet them like bellhops.
Despite the UNCHR deliberately acting to destroy Western borders, the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was drafted in such a way that they are guaranteed a seat at any reviews and modifications that come up.
Not only does the U.N. work to undermine sovereign nations, but they are sure to publish guidebooks to make it easy.
Of course, the illegal aliens entering Canada through underhanded means is nothing compared to the vast LEGAL immigration which is effectively population replacement.
Previously a Federal Court Prothonotary ruled that a citizen has no public or private standing to demand the Court take action against the government. That is being appealed.
The Western World is facing some serious challenges, to put it very mildly. Our politicians, media, and courts are stacked against us.
CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement. CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim. CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
NOTE: This is an unedited version of the written submission.
There is further editing and changes being made.
PART I. ISSUES
(1) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make overriding palpable error saying the Plaintiff’s claim was based on personal opinions, without material facts?
(2) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law in finding there is no public or private standing in the matter?
(3) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not taking facts alleged as proven, at least in the preliminary stages?
(4) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by overreaching, and striking out a Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and involves in depth analysis of law? Prothonotaries are not Judges or Justices.
(5) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not allowing for amendments?
(6) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by not considering arguments of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence, or constitutional issues prior to striking?
(7) Did Prothonotary Milczynski make an error of law by allowing procedural rules to unjustly hinder a self represented litigant?
Standard For Review
(8) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.
(9) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.
PART II. FACTS
(10) In December 2002, Canada and the United States signed the “Safe Third Country Agreement” (the S3CA). This was in effect an agreement to prevent “asylum shopping” by forcing alleging to be refugees to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in.
(11) In December 2004, the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) legally took effect between Canada and the United States. This is not disputed by the other side.
(12) However, due to a “loophole” in the agreement, the rules apparently do not apply if a “refugee” simply bypasses official border ports of entry. In other words, enter Canada from the U.S. at any place other than an official port, then different rules apply. The result has been fake refugees entering from the U.S. and attempting to claim asylum.
(13) Instead of turning people away attempting to enter Canada from the United States, this loophole has made it easier for people to enter the country and submit asylum applications here. This completely defeats the purpose of having the agreement in the first place.
(14) The United States considers many thousands of asylum applications every year (see Exhibit A). It is because of this, and because of how legitimate asylees are treated, Canada as made this Safe Third Country Agreement in the first place.
(15) The claim that the Plaintiff’s assertions are just personal opinions is false. The ruling by Prothonotary Milczynski of that is complete nonsense. Here are some examples.
(16) The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has reported (see Exhibit B) that at least 50,000 people have entered Canada in just the last 2 years, coming from all countries.
Close to 50,000 have come into Canada in just two years at Roxham Road, stepping across the border at the unauthorized crossing.
But the majority of those who come here to Plattsburgh, N.Y., by bus, train or plane have spent little time in the U.S., arriving on tourist visas with the intent of treading the footpath to Canada.
When CBC News visited the crossing recently, in one day we met families and single travellers from Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, as well as a Palestinian family from the occupied territories. Some arrived with what appeared to be fresh baggage tags from overseas flights into New York. Others had made their way north from Mexico, South and Central America.
They often prearrange taxis in Plattsburgh for the half-hour ride to the border. Since 2017, the route has become so normalized that taxi companies are branding themselves as border shuttles. A sign on one taxi van brazenly reads “Refugee Border.” Another reads “Roxham Border – LaColle Border” and advertises a group rate, with each ride costing between $60 and $80 US, a lucrative and steady business.
(17) But perhaps CBC is just faking the article. Perhaps all of this really the Plaintiff’s opinion (sarcasm). But moving on, the United Nations has published freely available articles on Roxham Road in Quebec. One such article (see Exhibit C) reads that at least 20,000 people have entered Canada illegally just in the Summer of 2017:
The 48-year old man, who used to work for Oxfam Quebec in Haiti, is one of the estimated five thousand Haitians who, in the hot summer days of 2017, walked into Canada via Roxham Road at the U.S.-Canada border. Together with these Haitians, some 20,000 people crossed into Canada via Roxham Road that summer, making it the main entry point into Canada for asylum seekers crossing the border irregularly.
(18) The United Nations, in this article, estimates that at least 20,000 people crossed into Canada illegally in just the Summer of 2017 at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is the United Nations’ own estimate. Not my imagination or opinion, as Prothonotary Milczynski has stated. Moving on, the Toronto Star has also written about the problem (Exhibit D) and writes that people are entering from Roxham Road every day in Canada.
Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, migrants who came to the U.S. from across the globe — Syria, Congo, Haiti, elsewhere — arrive here where Roxham Rd. dead-ends so they can walk into Canada, hoping its policies will give them the security they believe the political climate in the United States does not.
“In Trump’s country, they want to put us back to our country,” said Lena Gunja, a 10-year-old from Congo, who until this week had been living in Portland, Maine. She was travelling with her mother, father and younger sister. “So we don’t want that to happen to us, so we want a good life for us. My mother, she wants a good life for us.”
(19) The Toronto Star not only details the illegals (fake refugees) crossing into Canada from the US, but documents a family who was coming to Canada simply because they feared deportation because they were living in the U.S. illegally.
(20) Next, Global News covered Toronto Mayor John Tory on the topic of border jumpers, (see Exhibit E). He has said that homeless shelter beds are being filled up with illegals, and it has cost at least $64.5 million:
“But that goal is simply not achievable if the other governments, especially the federal government, don’t step up and take much greater responsibility to help us in an area of their jurisdiction. The status quo is simply not acceptable.”
City officials say the number of refugee claimants in Toronto’s shelter system has increased from 459 (11.2 per cent of the total system) in 2016 to 2,351 (37.6 per cent of the total system) in April 2018.
Tory said that if the level of refugees arriving in Toronto continues to rise, the city projects it will incur $64.5 million in direct costs related to providing shelter and housing.
(21) CTV news has also written about the cost of these fake refugees. Here (Exhibit F) is one of their submissions:
OTTAWA — The federal government has spent over $270 million on irregular border crossers over the last year and a half, according to government figures submitted to the parliamentary budget office.
The figures were requested by parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette in early July and were recently released to members of the immigration committee.
All four agencies involved in dealing with irregular migration submitted amounts they have spent every month since early 2017 when the influx of asylum seekers began to ramp up. The total adds up to more than $270 million up to the end of June.
(22) Both the Conservative Party of Canada and the People’s Party of Canada have made pledges to close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement (Exhibits G and H). This is to prevent more illegal crossings. But perhaps it is their opinions as well that this is happening.
(23) Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruled that the Plaintiff is stating personal opinions and personal beliefs. For this conclusion to be true, all of the following entities would have to be lying:
(a) The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
(b) Global News
(c) CTV News
(d) Toronto Star
(e) City of Toronto
(f) Toronto Mayor John Tory
(g) Conservative Party of Canada, and its members
(h) People’s Party of Canada, and its members
(24) Of course, this is only a small sample of the media, print, photographic and video evidence available about the illegal border crossings going on, particularly at Roxham Road, QC. Even the simplest of online searches would have found a wealth of information corroborating what the Plaintiff alleges.
(25) Also, part of Prothonotary Milczynski’s ruling is confusing. She states (accurately) that I have concerns about illegal immigration and fake refugees gaming the system. That part is true. But then she goes on to state that these are bare assertions. Does she think the Plaintiff is making up the entire thing?
PART III. LAWS ON THE SUBJECT
Standard For Review
(26) Housen v. Nikolaisen (2002) is the accepted standard for review. It outlines the standard for both factual errors, errors of law, and mixed law and fact errors. Hospira Healthcare Corp v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology (2017) clarified that Prothonotary orders being reviewed should subjected to the same standard, as they are basically the same thing.
(27) The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. …. The standard of review on pure questions of law is one of correctness, and an appellate court is thus free to replace the opinion of the trial judge with its own. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application…. Questions of mixed fact and law involve the application of a legal standard to a set of facts.
(28) Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology,  1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)
 In Housen, the Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review applicable to decisions of trial judges. More particularly, it concluded that with respect to factual conclusions reached by a trial judge, the applicable standard was that of palpable and overriding error. It also stated that with respect to questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law, where there was an extricable legal principle at issue, the applicable standard was that of correctness (paragraphs 19 to 37 of Housen).
 I am therefore of the view that there is no reason why we should not apply to discretionary orders of prothonotaries the standard applicable to similar orders by motions judges. I am supported in this view by our decision in Imperial Manufacturing, where we applied the Housen standard in reviewing the discretionary decision of a motions judge, namely her determination of a motion for particulars regarding certain allegations made in the Plaintiff’s statement of claim.
(29) In this case, Prothnotary Milczynski made both errors of fact, and errors of law.
(30) First, the errors of fact. The biggest one is the stating that the Plaintiff is making bald assertions, is being argumentative, and is stating personal opinions. This is completely wrong.
(31) People are coming into Canada illegally, that has been thoroughly documented. The fact that it happens, and estimates about the scale and costs are all public knowledge. Yet Prothonotary shrugs this off as “opinion”.
(32) The Statement of Claim (as I understand it) is not supposed to include evidence. That is to come later. Moreover, when responding to the motion to strike (via Rule 221) evidence is not supposed to be submitted, so that was not an option. How is a Plaintiff supposed to prove these facts when the Statement is struck out prior to it being allowed in? It was offered to do, if the Claim were allowed to be amended, but that didn’t happen.
(33) Prothnotary Milczynski’s ruling that facts were just “personal opinions” was a palpable error. It was an overriding one, causing the case to be thrown out prematurely.
(34) The Government of Canada cited (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), arguing that a personal, private stake in the matter must be shown. Okay.
(35) From a purely financial point of view, the Plaintiff does not want to see her tax dollars being spent on people who have no right to be in the country in the first place. This includes people circumventing the law by going around official border crossings. While this seems superficial and cold, it is an improper use of taxpayer money. It was shown in earlier exhibits that social services “are” being accessed.
(36) Moving beyond that, letting people into the country who are unscreened is a danger to the Plaintiff’s well being. True, not everyone is violent, however the Plaintiff has an expectation that the Government will take reasonable steps to ensure the identities and security risks of people entering the country. Simply entering the country from the “warzone” of the United States claiming to be a refugee does not ensure her safety. Moreover, it is unclear what, if any, medical screening these people have undergone prior to coming to Canada. Again, they just show up and claim to be fleeing persecution.
(37) Also, allowing fake refugees to enter from the United States cheapens the Plaintiff’s citizenship. Being Canadian is supposed to come with privileges and rights that are unique to Canadians. Simply allowing anyone into Canada from the U.S. who “identifies” as a refugee undermines the process, and weakens what it means to be Canadian.
(38) Previous Counsel, Aman Owais, made the extremely false and disingenuous argument that because the Plaintiff is not a refugee she has no right to intervene, as her rights are not at stake. This was an intentional straw-man argument. It was never about getting the Plaintiff into Canada as a refugee, but about protecting her (and Canada as a whole) from abuse of the refugee process.
(39) Regarding a public standing (Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United v. Attorney General of Canada, 2010), has issued a 3 point test to determine standing:
(a) the existence of a serious justiciable issue;
(b) whether the Plaintiff has a real or genuine interest in the matter;
(c) whether the proceeding is an effective means of bringing it to the court
(40) First point, yes there is a serious, justiciable issue. Maintaining an actual border with the power to exclude people is important. Prothonotary Milczynski has stated that it is not a sufficient issue to bring to court. Wrong. As stated in the earlier submissions, we have borders for a reason, and it is to protect the citizens from outsiders. This is not xenophobic, but simple reality. How can the Government offer its citizens any level of safety and security if it cannot control who comes into the country? Only the most obtuse or contrarian person would argue that there is not serious issue about having borders that exclude people without a right to be in the country.
(41) Far from being the work of a “busybody”, asking the Court to enforce existing laws is vital to the well being of the nation. Indeed, being able to secure its perimeter is arguably the most important function a Government should have. Instead, it is fighting efforts to compel it to do so.
(42) Second point, yes, the Plaintiff has a genuine interest in the matter. She is concerned over the problem of illegal immigration into Canada, which is largely at — but not exclusive to — Roxham Road. She in concerned about the money being spent on this (both her and others), the security risk that large numbers of illegals pose, and the cheapening of the Canadian citizenship. It is nonsense to suggest that bringing this matter to the court — at her own time and expense — isn’t a real interest. Protecting your nation’s borders isn’t “busybody” work, it’s what any true patriot should see as important.
(43) Third point, is this an effective means of bringing it to the Court? Yes. What is being asked of the Court is to order the Government of Canada to enforce existing laws and to stop illegal immigration into this country. This case only covers ILLEGAL immigration, which as should be obvious, is illegal. Courts get asked to enforce laws, or order enforcement every day. The only difference here is the scale of the enforcement that is being asked of it. And if not the Court, then who exactly is to remedy a problem when the Government itself won’t act?
(44) Rules 17 and 25 of the Federal Courts Act give the Plaintiff the ability to file here. The Federal Court does have jurisdiction
17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.
25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.
(45) Think about how ridiculous this matter is: the Government of Canada has to be taken to court to enforce its own laws regarding border security. The Court is being asked to force the Government to enforce its own laws. The Judiciary has long been recognized as a “check and balance” against the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government.
(46) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when ruling that the Plaintiff had no standing, wither publicly or in private to bring the case. She seems to view it as an opinion that nations need borders.
Unjust Enrichment, Unconscionability
(47) The Plaintiff also raised the issue of unjust enrichment. If you accept the fact that fake refugees are coming into Canada and receiving social benefits (as was demonstrated in the “facts” section), then how is this not unjust enrichment? How is taking something that one is not entitled to anything but unjust? Courts have the power to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and typically they do.
(48) Beyond unjust enrichment, consider the doctrine on unconscionability. If the Safe Third Country Agreement is to be worded — as the Government suggested before — that putting this loophole was intentional, does that not violate good public policy? Should agreements that act against public interest not be amended or voided as appropriate. If that was the case (and it appears to be just another excuse) then the agreement was invalid to begin with.
(49) Prothonotary Milczynski made an error of law when not appropriately considering the argument of unjust enrichment, or unconscionability
(50) Prothonotary Milczynski also erred in law when striking out a matter that is not simple, or established law. It is well established that this is not appropriate
(51) In Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, the Ontario Court of Appeals reversed an order to strike out a Statement of Claim, stating that:
In my opinion, none of the above conclusions should be made at this stage of the proceedings. The threshold for sustaining a pleading under rule 21.01(1)(b) is not a high one. Much of the argument before us was directed to the lack of a factual underpinning for the causes of action alleged, particularly as to the damages issue. This is a matter to be resolved on the evidence called at the trial: see Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police (Commissioner) (1990), 1990 CanLII 7000 (ON CA), 73 O.R. (2d) 664, 38 O.A.C. 270 (C.A.). It is also accepted that the fact that a cause of action could be a novel one is not a bar to its proceeding to trial: see Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 959, 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321. The categories of relationships giving rise to fiduciary duties are not closed nor are the categories of negligence in which a duty of care is owed: see Guerin v. R., 1984 CanLII 25 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 335 at p. 383, 13 D.L.R. (4th) 321 at p. 341; International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., 1989 CanLII 34 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 574 at pp. 596-97, 61 D.L.R. (4th) 14 at p. 61, and 34 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed. (1980), para. 5 at p. 8
(52) Although this case was an Ontario one, the same principle can be applied to Federal cases as well. Even if there are deficiencies in the Statement of Claim, they can usually be cured by filing an “amended” Statement of Claim. That must always be considered when asked to strike out. This is settled by a great many cases.
(53) In the COMER case, it was argued, that:
 The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC),  2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC),  1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); Adams-Smith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.
 The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.
(56) This reasoning absolutely applies here.
(a) No previous ruling, on point, was ever argued by the Defense. They never attempted to claim that this has been settled.
(b) To reiterate, claims made by a Plaintiff must be taken as proven, at least initially.
(c) New cases do result in laws changing over time, and the Courts accept that principle.
(d) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are difficult to prove.
(e) Claims cannot be struck simply because they are novel.
(57) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just. If there were errors or confusion in the original Statement of Claim, it would have been better corrected by allowing an Amended Statement of Claim. Prothonotary Milczynski erred in not at least allowing the option. Certainly whether the Federal Government can be ordered to enforce its own laws regarding border security is an issue worthy of the Court’s attention.
(58) Striking out a claim in such an important and complex matter should be above the ability of a Prothonotary, and it is.
(59) Also worth noting is that failing to secure the border could be viewed as negligence by the Court. Negligence, broadly speaking, is a 3 part test:
(a) A duty of care is owed
(b) That duty of care is breached
(c) Harm results from breaching the duty of care
(60) I would argue that the Government does owe a duty of care to the Canadian public. Securing the Federal borders and excluding people not legally allowed to enter is the essence of that duty. By allowing illegals into the country, the Government is breaching that duty of care. Yes, harm is resulting. This comes from taxes being used to support illegals, reduced security of the people, and the general cheapening of the Canadian citizenship.
Peace, Order, Good Government (POGG, Section 91)
(61) The Plaintiff submits that allowing people to enter Canada illegally, and at taxpayer expense, violates the POGG Doctrine. Morally, the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. Also, if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into our country is doing no one any favours. We can’t provide safety to people fleeing persecution if anyone can enter as well
(62) We have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce
(63) Yes, there are some generalizations in the above paragraphs, but we have obligations: both to Canadians, and to legitimate refugees. Simply letting people bypass border controls is not a good way to govern a country.
Self Represented Litigants/Accused People
(64) Since the Supreme Court ruling of Pintea v. Johns, (which endorsed the statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council), it has been practice for courts to go the extra mile to ensure that procedurals rules are not used to unjustly hinder. The ruling also allows for Court officials to explain rules and options to self-represented persons.
(65) Opportunities to amend a claim, or make changes as the Court requires, are granted all the time to lawyers. A self-rep should be given no less consideration. If anything, Courts should be inclined to cut them a break.
(66) This is not an attempt to have the Court “make my case”. Rather, it is to ensure the issues originally raised (illegal immigration) actually have their day in Court. Since our Federal Government seems to have little interest in enforcing our borders, it’s time for another opinion.
Summary Of Errors
(67) Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding, palpable error in ruling the facts alleged by the Plaintiff were bare assertions, and personal opinions. No opportunity to introduce evidence had been available up to that point.
(68) Prothonotary Milczynski further made several errors of law including:
(a) wrongly applying the standard of public and private standing. It assumes that there is no public or private interest by the Plaintiff in stopping illegal immigration, and hence ruled on the entire case. An overreach.
(b) Striking out the Statement of Claim when facts alleged by the Plaintiff were supposed to be taken as proven, at least in preliminary stages. This is well settled case law.
(c) Striking out the Statement of Claim in a matter that is complex and complicated. That is a serious overreach for a Prothonotary. They are not judges, and not supposed to behave as such. Again, settled case law.
(d) Not allowing the Plaintiff an attempt to prove the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim, or allowing an amended Statement to be filed. Again, facts alleged are supposed to be taken as true in early stages.
(e) Not at least considering the claims of: unjust enrichment, unconscionability, negligence or any constitutional question. However, she ruled everything to be opinion anyway.
(f) Not giving any consideration to a self-represented litigant, consistent with the Pintea v. Johns principles.
PART IV: AUTHORITIES
 Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform v. Canada, 2014 FC 380 (CanLII)
 Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA)
 Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology,  1 FCR 331, 2016 FCA 215 (CanLII)
 Housen v. Nikolaisen,  2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII)
 Pintea v. Johns,  1 SCR 470, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)
This is a quote from the author of Uppity Peasants. During a recent conversation, she gave some really good reasons as to why people should not be allowed to enter Canada illegally and feast off the taxpayers. Rather than paraphrasing, here is a quote in its entirety in Part #2.
Initial challenge has been struck down. The Prothonotary has ruled that a citizen has no standing to make such a claim (either public or private standing), and that there is nothing that the Court can do. Pretty messed up to say that a citizen has no rights or say in having a secure border. The first level appeal is underway, which is an appeal to a Justice of the Federal Court, and more information will provided as it comes along.
2. Input from Uppity Peasants
Morally, I would say that the citizens of Canada have as much of a right to safety as does any genuine refugee, and that letting in large numbers of “undocumented migrants” puts their safety at risk. I would also say that if the intent is to provide safety for those fleeing persecution, making it easy for individuals who may be after them (gang members, abusive husbands, w/e) to follow them into *our* country is doing no one any favours
I would further submit that we have no business in taking in so many people when we already have a housing shortage on our hands. crowding our homeless citizens out of the shelters by filling them with border crossers is morally reprehensible, particularly in light of our harsh winter climate. to do so is to argue that any one “refugee” from the other side of the planet is more worthy of shelter than a given, homeless Canadian; and given the disproportionately high rates of indigenous men and women among the homeless population, and the recent semi-official declaration of the federal government’s treatment of indigenous Canadians as “genocide”, this ought not to be a perception for the government to continue to reinforce.
Go check out Uppity Peasants website. Some very interesting content indeed. This is a moral and philosophical argument against allowing illegals to keep sneaking into Canada (mainly via Roxham Road, QC).
Hard to disagree with a single word here.
3. Why Try To Close The Loophole?
Writing and talking about immigration — legal or illegal — is one thing. Anyone can say they oppose something, or oppose an injustice. Anyone can complain about their concerns.
But in the end, do you actually mean anything that you say?
(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)
(UN Population Division still hard at work)
(The UN Global Migration Group)
(Other important replacement migration meetings)
(Agreed outcomes on population)
1. Important Links
Other Canuck Law Articles CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974. CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide. CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”. CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity. CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration. CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.
UN webpages worth a read CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website. CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies. CLICK HERE, for participant contact info. CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration. CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline. CLICK HERE, for various conferences. CLICK HERE, for the “About” page. CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division. CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.
2. Some Context For The Article
This should be obvious, but nations should look after their own affairs. It is beyond creepy that the United Nations not only has an interest, in population management, but regularly holds conferences on the subject. Shocking yes, but keep reading. The proof is undeniable.
Furthermore, this is not a one time event. It has been going on for the better part of a century now.
3. Kalergi Plan of the 1920s
This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.
The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.
Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.
4. Implementing Kalergi Via Multiculturalism
Here are some quotes from the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It was designed to prevent groups from committing atrocities against each other, and provide some means for punishment should it happen.
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.
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.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Now, on the surface, nothing seems objectionable here. After all, who “doesn’t” oppose measures to stop people from committing genocide against another? All of this seems sensible.
However, there is another way to look at it. Instead of committing overt violence against a group, more subtle measures could be introduced. These would be measures that would bring about the same effects.
An obvious on is replacement migration. Try to reduce the birth rate in one country by various means, such as claiming it’s to prevent climate change. Then, once the population starts dropping, introduce “replacement” migration to make up for the shortfall.
Another common technique is the concept of multiculturalism. Let’s be honest here. Multiculturalism is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Trying to get very different cultures to live together never works out. It ends with either:
Erosion of the host culture
Tension and/or violence
Some combination of the above
Still one more technique is to implement laws which guarantee social cohesion will never take place. These include affirmative action or quotas in schools or employment. There can also be laws to erode or erase parts of the group identity, ensuring tension will never go away.
What if this type of system was deliberately inflicted, by trying to mix incompatible groups?
5. UN Global Migration Group
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Regional Commissions
United Nations University (UNU)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Source is here. These organizations meet regularly to discuss global migration issues, as the name implies.
It’s also interesting the sheer number and range of UN groups involved with this “Global Migration Group”. Education, higher education, trade, research, refugees and labour all affiliated with it.
6. Rome Population Conference (1954)
World Population Conference
Rome, 31 August- 10 September 10 1954
The First World Population Conference organized by the United Nations was held in Rome in 1954 to exchange scientific information on population variables, their determinants and their consequences. This eminently academic Conference resolved basically to generate fuller information on the demographic situation of the developing countries and to promote the creation of regional training centres which would help to address population issues and to prepare specialists in demographic analysis.
World Population Conference
Belgrade, 30 August-10 September 1965
The Second World Population Conference was organized in 1965 by the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the United Nations; most of the participants were experts in the field. The focus at this international meeting was on the analysis of fertility as part of a policy for development planning. This Conference was held at a time when expert studies on the population aspects of development coincided with the start-up of population programmes subsidized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The World Population Conference was hold in Bucharest, Romania, from 19 to 30 August 1974. Representatives of 136 Member States attended (more than 1400 persons). The draft of the World Population Plan of Action, prepared by the Population Division with the assistance of an advisory committee of experts, had been reviewed by the Population Commission and discussed at the five regional meetings. The draft was amended by the working group and adopted by the plenary.
At the time the UN had 138 Member States. Family planning was being promoted by 59 countries.
The World Population Plan of Action had four parts:
-principles and objectives;
-recommendations for action, and
-recommendations for implementation.
Negotiations tended to make aspects of population policies weaker and aspects of social and economic development stronger. The Conference became polarized between the ‘incrementalist’ position of a group of Western States (including US, UK, Germany) that believed that rapid population growth was a serious impediment to development, and the ‘redistribution’ position, followed by a group of developing countries led by Argentina and Algeria that believed that the population problem was a consequence and not a cause of underdevelopment and that it could be solved by a new international economic order focusing on the redistribution of resources
Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population between 6 – 14 August 1984. It was attended by representatives of 147 Member States (the UN had 157 Member States). At the time 123 countries promoted family planning.
The Conference adopted the Recommendations for the Further Implementation of the WPPA. Several key Member States had changed positions compared to those they had in 1974. The United States now considered population a neutral phenomenon for development. Many developing countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan expressed their firm support for family planning and population programmes. Many developed countries, including Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom stated their willingness to increase their support for population programmes. The United States stated its policy of not funding any programmes facilitating abortion.
Building up towards the Cairo Conference
Population Commission as Preparatory Committee The Preparatory Committee met three times. At its first session (4-8 March 1991) the Committee set the objectives of the meeting and defined the issues to be discussed; agreed to take account of the outcomes of recent United Nations global conferences; and considered the assignment or responsibilities to United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. At its second Session (1-21 May 1993), in which observers from 185 NGOs were present, the Preparatory Committee agreed to establish a new programme of action to replace the WPPA and the Mexico recommendations to guide action on population in the next 20 years and directed the Secretariat to hold a substantive debate on the concept and structure of the proposed Recommendations of the Conference. At its third session (4-22 April 1994) the Preparatory Committee discussed the ‘Draft Final Document: Programme of Action of the Conference’ prepared by the Secretariat.
The International Conference on Population and Development
The International Conference on Population and Development was convened in Cairo, Egypt, from 5 to 13 September 1994. It was attended by 179 governmental delegations from UN Member States, 7 observers at governmental level, the European Union and several hundred NGOs. Several thousand media representatives covered the Conference.
The Conference adopted the Programme of Action, which emphasized the fundamental role of women’s interests in population matters and introduced the concepts of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. A new definition of population policy was advanced, giving prominence to reproductive health and the empowerment of women.
A series of expert meetings, has been held by the United Nations over the last 20 years. All of these involve population control and management.
13. New York Declaration (2016)
The actual text is here for the New York Declaration of 2016. Basically this is a “warm-up” to the infamous GLOBAL MIGRATION COMPACT. In fact, most of the text here appears in the 2018 UN GMC, just worded a bit differently.
Here, are the main points in the NY declaration. They were covered in a previous piece, so I won’t be going into detail here.
14. Global Migration Compact (2018)
That was also covered here, and this document is the original source material. A plan to help move some 258 million (yes, million) people from one country to another, and to enshrine new “rights” for these migrants. Of course there is the vile “OBJECTIVE 17(c)” which effectively criminalises criticism of migration and allows media outlets to be shut down.
15. Replace S. Korea Population
There is no doubt that the elderly will increase and the absolute size of the total population will decline in the future. Although the UN projected the size of net immigrants in Korea will remain constant in the future, it cannot be ensured that such maximum sizes are the most optimum in terms of the socio-economic, environmental and other factors. In other words, the criteria for projection of the numbers of net immigrants should be determined, taking into account all the factors to be included in addition to demographic factor.
However, experts agree that the change in population size and structure, specifically population ageing, will require an influx of foreign labor migrants to keep the national productivity that will help accommodate the promotion of quality of life for the whole population. Specifically, it provides an opportunity to emphasize to policy-makers that the future population policies need to be integrated with health, welfare and social security related policies.
Since the female participation in economic activity is still low in comparison with those in western countries, the policy for increasing women’s economic participation will play an important role in compensating for the expected shortage of labor, through which the support for the increasing old persons can be helped. As a matter of fact, the Korean government has made efforts to improve conditions for encouraging female’s employment; which include improvement on gender discrimination in employment and increases in compatibility of women’s work with child rearing.
The UN has been researching, among other places, South Korea. It recommends mass migration to stem the declining population, which is no surprise. Let’s get women working more, hence decreasing the amount of Korean children who are born. Of course, when the numbers drop, further replacement migration is always possible.
This report never seems to value the ethnic and cultural homogeny that S. Korea has. There is no emphasis on maintaining its identity. Instead, keep pushing for more and more replacement migration.
16. Replace The Russian Population
D. CONCLUSIONS In Russia, like in most industrial countries, the balance of births and deaths will most likely be such in the first half of the 21st century that the natural population increase will be negative. If the country’s population will continue to depend largely on the natural reproduction, it will unavoidably decrease in size and will age rapidly. These two trends might be counteracted only by an inflow of immigrants, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the volume and composition of immigration flows.
Nevertheless, Russia could unlikely avoid the arrival of large immigration inflows. On one hand, their inevitability is dictated by the internal demographic situation in Russia. While unfavorable consequences of the population aging are not so dramatic as sometimes imagined, and those actually present may be largely neutralized by economic and social policy measures, the population decrease will present Russia with a very hard choice. It should either succumb to a continuous aggravation of the already meager population / territory ratio, or to widely open its doors to immigration.
Both solutions bear unwelcome consequences, so the lesser of two evils should be chosen. On the other hand, the future developments cannot be predicted without taking into account the demographic situation outside Russia, particularly the overpopulation beyond its southern frontiers. This overpopulation together with the increasing mobility of the populations in the neighbouring countries will unavoidably produce a growing migration pressure, at least in the form of illegal migration, that will become more and more difficult to hold in check and which will compel Russia to respond with expanding the legal immigration possibilities.
As with South Korea, the UN recommends that Russia replace its population in order to “save itself”. Interestingly, the solution is never to have more local births. It is always mass migration.
17. Replace The European Populations
The analysis of recent developments in cohort fertility profiles indicates that a return of European fertility levels to, or close to, replacement level is not in the making. Even if the pace of postponement in western counties slows down or stops altogether, only a modest rise in TFRs is to be envisaged. This rise, furthermore, strongly depends on the amount of fertility recuperation at older ages (i.e. past age 30), and except for the Scandinavian countries, this recuperation has been inadequate, and strongly so in a number of large EU-countries (Spain, Italy, Germany). In Eastern and Central Europe the steep fertility decline is predominantly a feature of the 1990s, and caused by a fertility reduction in all cohorts, irrespective of the stage of family building or age. Also in these countries the degree of fertility recuperation, particularly for the post-Communist generations, will be crucial in establishing more acceptable levels of period fertility. Finally, policy measures directly aimed at influencing fertility have had clear, but only temporary effects, and also sustained policies producing sometimes large income transfers in favour of families with children have not had any substantial effects either.
The prospect of long term sub replacement fertility had to revive the issue of replacement migration sooner or later. In this respect the UN-report (2000) drew widespread media attention all over Europe, but the unfortunate feature was that the media zoomed in on the results of only one simulation, i.e. the one maintaining a constant PSR at all times till 2050. Much earlier formal demographic analysis (e.g. Blanchet, 1988) had indicated that such age structure equilibration leads to impossible outcomes, in contrast to longer term views with less stringent constraints. However, the latter still lead to record immigration intakes of over 1.0 million p.a. from 2025 onward for the EU as well as for the remainder of Europe. Moreover, the efficiency of such a replacement migration remains limited if not complemented by other measures such as the rise of labour force participation rates. The latter is particularly needed in countries, both in and outside the EU, that had a considerable reduction in male activity rates above age 50 or have a small female labour force participation expressed in full time equivalents. Finally, replacement migration into the EU needs to be directed especially toward the countries with the largest fertility deficit, including Italy and Spain who have only more recently become immigration countries. Hence, the million or so extra immigrants should by no means be spread evenly within the EU territory
In this last article, Europe is recommended to ramp up their mass migration to fulfill labour shortages. It’s always the same solution, isn’t it?
18. Thoughts On The Topic
This replacement migration plan is disturbing beyond belief. It is a globally coordinated effort to replace the host populations throughout the developed world, and to maintain control over the new ones. It reads like some plot in a children’s cartoon. However, it is actually happening.
As has been thoroughly outlined and documented on this website, the United Nations is a globalist institution aiming at world domination. Under the guise of “international cooperation”, national sovereignty has been eroded for decades.
Therefore, it is quite uplifting to see that the UN has dire financial problems. Consider this a form of schadenfreude, enjoying the misery of your enemy.
3. Data On How Many Pay Up
Paid In Full
Source is right here. However, it is a little unclear why only the people who are fully paid up are listed. Is this an attempt to shame those who aren’t paying their “fair share” to erase their sovereignty?
Note: In fairness, 2019 obviously isn’t over yet, so that 127 number could very easily change.
4. UN Posting On “Cash Crisis”
In a statement issue by his Spokesperson, the Secretary-General said he had written to Member States, “about the worst cash crisis facing the United Nations in nearly a decade. The Organization runs the risk of depleting its liquidity reserves by the end of the month and defaulting on payments to staff and vendors.”
Although 129 States out of 193 have now paid their regular annual dues, the most recent being Syria, UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told correspondents at the regular briefing in New York, others needed to pay “urgently and in full”.
“This is the only way to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally. The Secretary-General further asked governments to address the underlying reasons for the crisis and agree on measures to put the United Nations on a sound financial footing.”
As of the end of September, only 70 per cent of the total assessment for the year had been paid, versus 78 per cent this time last year. Up to 8 October, Member States have paid $1.99 billion towards the regular budget assessment for 2019, which means there is an outstanding amount of around $1.3 billion for the year, Mr. Dujarric told correspondents.
In the page, the UN warns that travel will have to be kept to a minimum, and new postings not filled. Okay, but why isn’t non-essential travel already stopped? The UN takes money from other nations with those “Carbon taxes”.
Those annual conferences on climate change involve flying in tens of thousands of people — each year — to talk about cutting emissions. The hypocrisy is astounding. Has no one ever heard of video conferencing?
Looking at all of the overhead and personnel involved in the UN, one would reasonably wonder how much of the waste can be cut. It seems like a horribly inefficient organization.
With all of the money coming in, and all of the “extra” sources of revenue starting up, where exactly is it going? Should the UN be audited by outside firms?
5. From The Reuters Article
He told the 193-member U.N. General Assembly’s budget committee that if he had not worked since January to cut spending then “we would not have had the liquidity to support” the annual gathering of world leaders last month.
Pardon the nitpicking, but I have to ask: if you are concerned about financing essential humanitarian efforts around the world, why are you wasting money with an annual world leaders gettogether? Seems like the money can be better spent than on photo-ops.
“This month, we will reach the deepest deficit of the decade. We risk … entering November without enough cash to cover payrolls,” said Guterres. “Our work and our reforms are at risk.”
The United States is the largest contributor – responsible for 22 percent of the more than $3.3 billion regular budget for 2019, which pays for work including political, humanitarian, disarmament, economic and social affairs and communications.
Yes, the U.S. contributes almost a quarter of your budget. And it does so every year.
Washington owes some $381 million for prior regular budgets and $674 million for the 2019 regular budget. The U.S. mission to the United Nations confirmed the figures.
Sure, let’s take a shot at the United States. But just a bit later in the article, Reuters provides some context for the American contributions:
“Overall the United States, as the largest contributor to the U.N., contributes roughly $10 billion annually in assessed and voluntary contributions across the United Nations system,” the official said.
U.S. President Donald Trump has said Washington is shouldering an unfair burden of the cost of the United Nations and has pushed for reforms of the world body. Guterres has been working to improve U.N. operations and cut costs.
Well, it’s true.
6. UN Still Has Jobs Postings
Very interesting. The U.N. still has job postings for 1678 positions. Rather incongruent with having such an extreme cash crunch. To be fair, however, there are likely many very old postings.
7. Where Does It Go From Here?
Yes, the UN still has job postings available. While this does look sketchy, let’s play some devil’s advocate and assume they are slow to update their website. Yes, it could be a total fraud.
Now, admittedly this is speculation.
While having the UN collapse and die off sounds appealing, it’s very unlikely that it would actually happen. it can always downsize parts of its operations and keep going. It can also raise additional cash, say by Soros or other globalists. Or it can just refuse to honour parts of its debts. Businesses and other organizations can survive a long time while being in the red financially.
This is definitely encouraging, but too soon to predict a collapse of the UN. Hopefully that day will come. National sovereignty is more important than “multilateralism”.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Preventing/Punishing Genocide CLICK HERE, for review of multiculti/genocide. CLICK HERE, for Robert Putnam’s research on diversity & community.
UN Replacement Migration Schemes CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt) CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998). CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005). CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008). CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013). CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016) CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018) CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe. CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.
Other Articles On Immigration CLICK HERE, for mass migration at 1M/year in Canada. CLICK HERE, for migration programs in Canada. CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04. CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence. CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program. CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain. CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment. CLICK HERE, for CANZUK review.
2. The Kalergi Plan
This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Codenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.
The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.
Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.
3. UN Convention On Genocide
Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.
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.
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.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
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.
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.
Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.
4. Abstract Of Research Paper
We provide new measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization for about 190 countries. These measures are more comprehensive than those previously used in the economics literature and we compare our new variables with those previously used. We also revisit the question of the effects of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization on quality of institutions and growth. We partly confirm and partly modify previous results. The patterns of cross-correlations between potential explanatory variables and their divergent degree of endogeneity makes it hard to make unqualified statements about competing explanations for economic growth and the quality of government.
5. Quotes From Harvard Paper
a) On economic growth, we broadly confirm the results by Easterly and Levine (1997). In fact the negative effect of ethnic fragmentation on growth is reinforced with the new data, and we are able to highlight the differences between ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.
Here it is. These differences can be measured and contrasted.
The differences in the results between religious and linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are quite suggestive. Religious affiliation is the most endogenous of the three variables. Religions can be banned and individual can relatively easily “hide” their religious affiliation to avoid repression. Individuals and families can change from one religion to another far more easily than they can change race or language. In a sense, a higher observed measure of religious fractionalization can be a sign of a more tolerant and democratic form of government. In a more repressive regime, you can hide your religion or conform to the state-imposed religion, but hiding your racial origin, especially if it relates to skin color, is much more difficult. Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country.
(Page 13) Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country? Not really. Mass migration policies of the West do exactly that. Want to create a Chinese nation? Just import enough Chinese nationals until they dominate the area. Want an Islamic state? Import endless Muslims.
The authors are correct that it is difficult to change the ethnic composition. However, open borders activists are doing exactly that, under the guise of “diversity”.
4 The Quality of Government
One of the reasons why ethnic fractionalization may negatively influence economic success in terms of growth and level of income has to do with the potentially negative effects of ethnic conflict on the quality of policy and of institutions
No kidding. It’s almost as if forced diversity if harmful to the productivity of a nation.
5 Discussion of Individual Data Points
A cross-country statistical exercise is a crude way to summarize complex political and economic histories of countries and their constituent ethnic groups. A promising direction for future research would be for economists to do more case histories of development, economic policy, and government quality in ethnically diverse places, of the kind that the political science literature does.
How long before we start imposing more diversity as a means of generating more samples to conduct research.
The standard account of Nigeria’s ethnic conflict pits the Muslim North versus the Christian South, but this is a simplification. Firstly, the Christian South is divided between the Yoruba and Igbo. Secondly, there are substantial Southern minority groups living in Northern cities, a situation that has led to recurrent communal violence. Thirdly, fractious ethnic groups in the center of the country and in the oil-rich Niger delta keep small-scale conflict going even out of the limelight of the Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo three-way ethnic war. Table 15 shows that Nigeria has had disastrous economic policies (high black market premiums), poor infrastructure (virtually no telephone density) and high corruption.
(Page 16) Interesting how Islam is downplayed here. Muslims have been waging war for 1400 years, and millions of Christians have died because of it.
Also intriguing is the authors omit a possibility ethnic conflicts are kept from the media: perhaps the players want to keep the money rolling in, so there may be a pact to keep it on the down low.
Ethiopia also has very high ethnic and linguistic diversity (according to both new and old measures), and ethnic conflict has been at the center of Ethiopian history for centuries. Ethiopia has had one of the lowest growth rates in the world over the past half-century and as a result remains one of the least developed nations in the world
Wouldn’t this be a clear case of diversity and multiculturalism not working out?
Guyana shows up as ethnically diverse in our data because of its racial breakdown between Africans, East Indians, Europeans, and others. The Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese are the predominant groups and are almost numerically equal. Since they have mobilized politically along ethnic lines (supporting two different parties since before independence), any consensus for development has been torn apart by competition for rents between the two groups
Mobilizing along racial and ethnic lines to protect your group interests? Funny, whites are considered racist when they do that.
Chile, in contrast, is a well known Latin American success story ….. The difference in Chile was probably due to its higher level of homogeneity. In fact, after Pinochet’s departure from power the new democratic regime showed remarkable stability by Latin American standards. The relative ethnic homogeneity of the society may have made achieving support for reform and economic development easier than in Bolivia or Guyana.
In today’s lesson we learn that apples are different from oranges. Chile is seen as a success story, but it is also much more homogenous than many other places.
The question of what makes different countries more or less successful economically and what explains their quality of policies is one of the most fascinating that economists can ask, but it is also one of the most difficult to answer. Different authors have their own “favorite” explanatory variables: from purely “economic” ones, to geographic ones, to legal ones, to political, cultural, religious and historical ones. In this paper we have considered closely one such set of variables: measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.
(Page 20) Thank you Harvard, for proving that multiculturalism and diversity do not work when objectively measured.
6. Asking The Obvious Questions
This paper is from 2002, 17 years ago.
The detrimental effects of multiculturalism and forced diversity have been researched extensively, and the same trends keep coming back. People want to live and work with others who are like themselves.
One can sing the praises of diversity endlessly. Fact is, however, an awful lot of people want nothing to do with it. They prefer close knit, homogenous communities.
Despite all of this being obvious, and despite the research done, multiculturalism and diversity are still pushed in Western nations. Why is that? Why push for policies that are clearly and blatantly harmful? Is this sheer stupidity, or is there malice involved? Who is behind this push in the West?
Why is it that some nations can protect their national cultures, heritages, traditions — and yes ethnicities — but others are pressured into being diverse? Why these double standards?