TSCE #16: Bit Of History, NGOs Trying To Open Canada’s Borders For Decades

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #10: letting illegals in violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #11: Using courts to open Canada’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #12: Amnesty International’s Zionist roots.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #13: Canadian Council for Refugees’ lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #14: Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburg Cares, Solidarity Across Borders.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #15: Amb David Berger, Jewish Refugee Action Network, CCR.

2. Why Canadians Should Care

It should worry Canadians greatly when there is a sustained effort to undermine and erode our borders. The overwhelming majority of people don’t know how far back this goes. Although efforts predate these cases, this is where we will start.

On the first attempt, the Canadian Council of Churches went to court to try to get certain new legislation thrown out. This legislation would have made it harder for people to enter Canada from the U.S. and claim asylum. It went to the Supreme Court, but ultimately, it was ruled the group did not have public interest standing.

3. Court History Over The Years

Again, many more attempts have been made in recent decades to erase borders, but this article will only focus on a few of them.

FIRST ATTEMPT: KILL “SAFE COUNTRY” DESIGNATION
(a) Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3

(b) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada,
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534

(c) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing

SECOND ATTEMPT: KILL CANADA/US S3CA
(a) 2008 ruling S3CA has no effect
Docket: IMM-7818-05
S3CA Provisions Struck Down

(b) The 2008 ruling is overturned on appeal
Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2008 FCA 229
Appeal granted, S3CA restored

THIRD ATTEMPT: TORONTO CASES TO STRIKE S3CA
(a) 2017, Prothonotary Milczynski considers consolidation
IMM-2229-17, IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17
Milczynski Considers Consolidation

(b) 2017, CJ Crampton transfers cases to J. Diner
Crampton Transfers Consolidated Cases

(c) 2017, Justice Diner grants public interest standing
Citation: 2017 FC 1131
Amnesty Int’l, CDN Councils of Churches, Refugees

(d) 2018, Justice Diner grants consolidation of 3 cases
Citation: 2018 FC 396
Cases to be consolidated

(e) 2018, Justice Diner allows more witnesses
Citation: 2018 FC 829
2018.Diner.Calling.More.Witnesses

(f) 2019, Justice McDonald says no more witnesses
Citation: 2019 FC 418
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

4. 1992: SCC Rules No Standing

1992.SCC.Rules.No.Standing
The CanLII link is here.

Federal Court, Trial Division, Rouleau J., [1989] 3 F.C. 3
.
Rouleau J. dismissed the application. His judgment reflects his concern that there might be no other reasonable, effective or practical manner to bring the constitutional question before the Court. He was particularly disturbed that refugee claimants might be faced with a 72-hour removal order. In his view, such an order would not leave sufficient time for an applicant to attempt either to stay the proceedings or to obtain an injunction restraining the implementation removal order.
.
Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 534
.
MacGuigan J.A. speaking for a unanimous Court allowed the appeal and set aside all but four aspects of the statement of claim.
.
In his view the real issue was whether or not there was another reasonably effective or practical manner in which the issue could be brought before the Court. He thought there was. He observed that the statute was regulatory in nature and individuals subject to its scheme had, by means of judicial review, already challenged the same provisions impugned by the Council. Thus there was a reasonable and effective alternative manner in which the issue could properly be brought before the Court.
.
He went on to consider in detail the allegations contained in the statement of the claim. He concluded that some were purely hypothetical, had no merit and failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action. He rejected other claims on the grounds that they did not raise a constitutional challenge and others on the basis that they raised issues that had already been resolved by recent decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal.
.
He granted the Council standing on the following matters raised on the statement of claim

Without getting too much into the technical details, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the Canadian Council of Churches, an organization, should be granted public interest standing to strike down all or part of the immigration laws. Ultimately, the ruling was no.

Disposition of the Result
.
In the result I would dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal on the basis that the plaintiff does not satisfy the test for public interest standing. Both the dismissal of the appeal and the allowance of the cross-appeal are to be without costs.
Appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed.
.
Solicitors for the appellant: Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto.
.
Solicitor for the respondents: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
.
Solicitors for the interveners The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped and The Quebec Multi Ethnic Association for the Integration of Handicapped People: Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto.
.
Solicitors for the intervener League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada: David Matas, Winnipeg, and Dale Streiman and Kurz, Brampton.
.
Solicitors for the interveners Women’s Legal Education and Action (LEAF) and Canadian Disability Rights Council (CDRC): Tory, Tory, DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto and Dulcie McCallum, Victoria
.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court thought that a refugee, someone with actual standing (or something at stake) should be the one making the case.

Also worth noting, consider who some of the intervenors are in this case. A lot of people who want to make it easier to get into Canada.

5. 2008: S3CA, Parts Of IRPA Struck Out


S3CA, Parts of IRPA Struck

IT IS ORDERED THAT this application for judicial review is granted and the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” is quashed.

Yes, the Canada/U.S Safe Third Country Agreement was actually declared to have no legal effect. However, this is not the end of it, as we will soon see.

IT IS DECLARED THAT:
.
1. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America are ultra vires and of no legal force and effect.
2. The Governor-in-Council acted unreasonably in concluding that the United States of
America complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture.
3. The Governor-in-Council failed to ensure the continuing review of the designation
of the United States of America as a “safe third country” as required by
paragraph 102(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
4. Paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations and the operation of the Safe Third Country Agreement between
Canada and the United States of America violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not justified under section 1 thereof.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS are certified as serious questions of general
importance:
.
1. Are paragraphs 159.1 to 159.7 (inclusive) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and
the United States of America ultra vires and of no legal force and effect?
2. What is the appropriate standard of review in respect of the Governor-in-Council’s
decision to designate the United States of America as a “safe third country” pursuant
to s. 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
3. Does the designation of the United States of America as a “safe third country” alone
or in combination with the ineligibility provision of clause 101(1)(e) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is such violation justified under section 1?

If the United States is not a safe country, then why do tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people try to apply for asylum there every year?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was meant to prevent “asylum shopping” from taking place, but that is exactly what this ruling would have allowed.

6. 2009: Previous Ruling Overturned

The impugned Regulations and the Safe Third Country Agreement are not ultra vires the IRPA. Subsection 102(1) of the IRPA gives the GIC the power to promulgate regulations governing the treatment of refugee claims which may include provisions designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. This is a broad grant of authority intended to give effect to Parliament’s expressed intent that responsibility for the consideration of refugee claims be shared with countries that are respectful of their Convention obligations and human rights. The factors to be considered before designating a country are expressly set out in subsection 102(2) of the IRPA. The applications Judge’s misapprehended concern that the GIC would have the discretion to designate a country that does not comply with the Conventions led him to transform the statutory objective of designating countries “that comply” into a condition precedent.

The applications Judge adopted a hypothetical approach to the respondent organizations’ Charter challenge, i.e. that a class of refugees would be treated a certain way if they were to present themselves at a Canadian land border port of entry. This approach went against the well-established principle that a Charter challenge cannot be mounted in the abstract. There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada. The respondent organizations’ ability to bring the Charter challenge depended on John Doe. As the latter never presented himself at the border and therefore never requested a determination regarding his eligibility, there was no factual basis upon which to assess the alleged Charter breaches. The applications Judge thus erred in entertaining the Charter challenge.

[14] On December 29, 2005, the respondents launched an application for leave and judicial review seeking a declaration that the designation of the U.S. under section 102 of the IRPA was ultra vires, that the GIC erred in concluding that the U.S. complied with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and further, that the designation breached sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. For purposes of clarity, it is useful to set out in full the issues set out in the judicial review application filed before the Court:

[130] In short, a declaration of invalidity of the STCA Regulations is not required in order to ensure that they are not applied to claimants for protection at the land border in breach of either Canada’s international obligations not to refoule, or the Charter.
.
D. CONCLUSIONS
.
[131] For these reasons I would allow the appeal

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Lower Court considered a hypothetical scenario, and wrongly applied it to a Charter challenge. Put simply, Charter challenges are supposed to be ground in fact, and not “what if” situations. The ruling was overturned, and the Safe Third Country Agreement was restored.

7. 2017-Present: Toronto Challenge


Chief Justice Paul Crampton transferred 3 related cases to Justice Diner for case management. This is the same CJ Crampton who ruled that private citizens wishing to oppose the destruction of the S3CA don’t have standing.


Justice Diner granted public interest standing to 3 NGOs: Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches.


Justice Diner order the 3 cases to be consolidated and tried together because of the overlapping issues.

Note: also see here, for decisions from the Federal Court in the matter above.

The case is still pending.

8. So Who Are These NGOs?

Amnesty International
ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

B’nai Brith League For Human Rights
bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

B’nai Brith National Organization
bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

Bridges, Not Borders
Bridges Not Borders, Mainpage
Bridges Not Borders, About
Bridges Not Borders, Why They Cross
Bridges Not Borders, Media Page
Bridges Not Borders, Pro Asylum Shopping

Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers
carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Canadian Council For Refugees
ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

Plattsburgh Cares
Plattsburgh Cares Main Page
Plattsburgh Cares, Humanitarian Support

Solidarity Across Borders
Solidarity Across Borders’ Homepage
SAB Supports Illegal Migrant Caravans
SAB Supports Sanctuary Cities For Illegals
SAB Calls To Open Up The Borders

These are of course not the only NGOs working to open up our borders (and other nations’ borders as well), but it does at least provide some insight.

Also, see the above links in Section #1 for other articles published on these NGOs.

9. Look At The Bigger Picture

Last fall, the story made the news that a challenge would be coming to Toronto to the Safe Third Country Agreement.

However, the Canadian media left out important information. Shocking.

First, it didn’t go into any detail on the groups lobbying for this. It wasn’t just some helpless “asylum claimants”, but an organized effort to help erase Canada’s border with the U.S.

Second, the full extent of the NGO meddling is not mentioned. True, some media DO reference the 2007 case, but not further. It doesn’t provide a complete picture of what is going on. Nor does it mention how these groups are pushing similar initiatives elsewhere. Amnesty International, for example, claims to have 7 million members pushing to bring more migrants (primarily) to the West. The Canadian Council for Refugees, as another example, spends considerable time and effort lobbying our Parliament for more refugee friendly laws.

Third, there seems little concern for the Canadian who would have their safety and sovereignty eroded should this pass. Instead, the focus is always on people coming to Canada and what their needs are.

This is lawfare: using our courts and legal system to open our borders.

TSCE #15: David Berger, Ex-MP, Ex-Israel Ambassador, Now With JRAN, CCR

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

CLICK HERE, for David Berger’s LinkedIn page.
http://archive.is/8HaiV
CLICK HERE, for David Berger is part of CCR.
http://archive.is/pjwr7
CLICK HERE, for Berger wants to bring UK refugee to Canada.
archive.is/yvsOx
CLICK HERE, for IFCJ Canada Board of Directors.
http://archive.is/ZqEmK
CLICK HERE, for the Jewish Refugee Action Network.
http://archive.is/HjDov (2017)
http://archive.is/3zwWq (2020)
CLICK HERE, for JRAN – refugee connection.
http://archive.is/j5RQN
CLICK HERE, for JRAN Board Members.
http://archive.is/ScX9k
CLICK HERE, for JRAN, the issues.
http://archive.is/pQ56M
CLICK HERE, for Berger/JRAN letter to PM.
http://archive.is/fetf1
CLICK HERE, for Berger/Goldstein law practice.
http://archive.is/eSdft
CLICK HERE, for Netanyahu doesn’t want refugees.
http://archive.is/LUS4d

2. From LinkedIn Page

My practice includes many different aspects of immigration, refugee and citizenship law including skilled worker applications, business immigration programs, and work or study permits.
.
I provide counsel to individuals, families and businesses in all facets of an application, notably in identifying the most expeditious manner of obtaining a visa or permit, communications with government officials, and appeals. I also have had particular success with difficult applications where clients faced considerable obstacles in obtaining or maintaining status in Canada.
.
Immigration to Canada represents opportunity but also difficulties and risks. I help clients to minimize the difficulties and risks and ensure the best possible results.

Just from the LinkedIn page we can get lots of information about David Berger. He was a Member of Parliament for several terms, is a former Ambassador to Israel, and now works for the NGO, Canadian Council for refugees.

3. Berger Pushed Asylum For UK “Refugee”

Dr. Khalid, 32, was forced into exile in London in March, along with her husband, but maintains she had always intended to seek asylum in Canada, where her relatives live.

Canada was one of the first countries to include gender-based persecution in its refugee determination process, and should come to the aid of the high-profile victim of violence, said Mr. Berger, a former Quebec Liberal MP (Westmount-St. Henri) who was posted to Israel as ambassador in 1995.

“The U.K. may not be the safest place for her,” said Mr. Berger, a lawyer who has taken Dr. Khalid’s case pro bono.
“It appears for some time Dr. Khalid has indicated she wanted to come to Canada and this is the country where she would be the happiest.”

Two interesting points about this Globe and Mail article. The first is that Mr. Berger sees nothing wrong with asylum shopping, and that refugees should simply be allowed to go where they please.

The other is that he claims the UK is not a safe country. Could this be because of their policy of bringing in huge numbers of Muslim migrants? Now the demographic shift has made the UK unsafe? In that case, why should we bring Muslims to Canada, and turn it into the UK (or essentially the 3rd world)?

4. David Berger Part Of CCR

Immigration lawyer and David Berger is a member of the Canadian Council of Refugees, an NGO that advocates for migrants. Berger is also Canada’s former Ambassador to Israel and a former member of Canada’s Parliament. “We’ve got a backlog today of 30,000 claims whereas about two years ago the backlog was 10 or 15 thousand,” he explained. He said there aren’t enough immigration judges, formally known in Canada as decision makers.

“We believe the government has to appoint more decision makers. 120 decision makers is just not enough,” Berger continued. He added that Canada is a better country for the contributions refugees make. He represents or has represented people with advanced degrees in literature and finance, images that defy stereotypes harbored by some anti-immigrant forces.

David Berger is part of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which, among other things, is working to strike down the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement. If this is successful (it was initially, but overturned on appeal a decade ago), people from the warzone that is the United States will be free to waltz in and claim they are refugees, regardless of how meritless the claims may be.

5. Jewish Refugee Action Network

Overview of JRAN’s concerns
Since 2012, significant changes have been made to Canada’s treatment of refugees. For decades, Canada’s refugee system worked towards protecting people in danger and other humanitarian goals. The new changes, however, do the following: discriminate between individuals based on their country of origin or how they arrived in Canada; create serious challenges in the refugee determination process, which could lead in some cases to the deportation of individuals to their home countries and a real risk of persecution or worse; and limit certain humanitarian protections. In addition, since 2012, a half century’s old system of providing healthcare coverage to people seeking refugee status has been cut, thereby stranding thousands of people who are lawfully in Canada without emergency or life-saving healthcare.

1. Refugee Determination Process
Since 2012, changes to the refugee determination system make it difficult for many refugee claimants to prove their claims, and limits their ability to get a fair hearing due to severely shortened timelines, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on other legal processes. Without a fair refugee hearing, there is a risk that people will be deported to countries where they face danger to their safety, freedom, or even their lives….

2. “Designated Countries of Origin” (DCOs)
The new Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) scheme creates a new category of refugee claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries are not entitled to the same legal process as refugee claimants from non-designated countries. Ostensibly created to distinguish between refugee claimants from “safe” countries and claimants from other countries, in reality the DCO scheme creates a two-tiered system that discriminates between refugee claimants based on their country of origin, and limits the ability of claimants to get a fair hearing regarding their individual case….

3. “Designated Foreign Nationals” (DFNs)
Under the new designated foreign national (DFN) scheme, the Minister of Public Safety may “designate” two or more refugee claimants who arrive in Canada without the appropriate Canadian visas or documents, if the Minister believes that they have paid someone to help them enter Canada, or if they lack the papers necessary to prove their identity in what the Minister believes is a “timely manner.” Being identified as a DFN has serious consequences, including mandatory group detention for what may be lengthy periods, restrictions on appeal rights, and restrictions on gaining permanent residence status…

4. Cuts to Refugee Healthcare Coverage
In 2012, the Canadian government made drastic cuts to healthcare coverage for refugee claimants. An Order in Council took away even basic emergency and life-saving medical care from thousands of refugee claimants who have lawfully sought Canada’s protection…

The Jewish Refugee Action Network states that it is concerned about rights and social services for refugees coming into Canada. Interesting that Berger, a several term Member of Parliament, shows far more concern for the well being of foreigners than he does Canadians.

Now let’s get to what JRAN considers the “refugee issue”, and it attempts to give some historical context.

Jews as Refugees – Biblical Connection
The Exodus from Egypt, one of the central stories in Jewish tradition, is a foundation document of Jews as refugees. Having been held slaves under the pharoahs for several hundred years, the Israelites were desperate for their freedom. Their dramatic departure reached its climax at the Red Sea, when the Israelites were finally able to escape Pharoah’s soldiers and Egypt.
.
Jewish law – Spiritual Connection
Jewish texts and laws provide a constant reminder about the Exodus and about the experience of slavery in Egypt. The Exodus is the central experience recounted in the Torah. It is mentioned as part of our weekly Friday night blessings, and is told in far greater detail at our annual Passover seders. At the seder, surrounded by comfort and good food, we are encouraged to remember the story as if we were the ones who had been slaves and refugees.
The experience in Egypt is repeated often in the Torah, with the explicit admonition to treat others with compassion and justice. Our Biblical laws – requiring us to provide for the widow and orphan, to treat workers fairly, and to help the foreigners in our midst – explain that we must do so because we ourselves were foreigners in Egypt. This idea is echoed more than 30 times in the Torah. Here too, we are asked to put ourselves in the position of our ancestors: slaves and foreigners in Egypt.
.
Jews as Refugees – Historical Connections
The Shoah (Holocaust) was another defining moment for the Jewish people. The genocide of six million Jews was a tragedy, heightened by the indifference of those free countries who refused to admit Jews to safety on their shores. Canada is one of several countries who bear the shame of having refused to receive 900 Jewish refugees who had managed to escape Germany aboard the ocean liner St. Louis. Many Canadian Jews remember the treatment of these desperate Jewish refugees.
.
Jews and Roma – Parallel Histories of Persecution
The persecution of Jews in Europe for many centuries, bears certain similarities to that experienced by the Roma people, who also faced restrictions on their employment and permitted living areas, violence, expulsions, and other forms of oppression. The Roma people, like the Jews, were the only other group legally targeted for extermination by the Nazis, and experienced their own genocide known as the Porajmos. Unfortunately, the Roma in Europe continue to suffer many forms of violence, discrimination, at the hands of bigots and fascists with the collusion of some governments.

Clearly, never missing an opportunity to play the victim narrative. David Berger is a Board Member of this group. This is the list.

JRAN Members
Honorary Members

  • Stephen Lewis, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair
  • Michele Landsberg, Honorary Canadian Co-Chair

Board Members

  • Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, founder of JRAN
  • Ken Rosenberg, Chair
  • Maureen Silcoff
  • Mary Jo Leddy
  • Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
  • Dr. Philip Berger
  • Bernie M Farber
  • Mitchell Goldberg
  • Valerie Hyman
  • Audrey Macklin
  • Anna Porter
  • Gabriela Ramo
  • Avrum Rosensweig
  • Jon Telch
  • Rivka Augenfeld
  • Cynthia Levine-Rasky
  • David Berger
  • Mira Oreck
  • Hesh Troper

6. Berger, JRAN, Lobbied For “Syrian Refugees”

As a wealthy and peaceful country, we have a shared international responsibility to be a safe haven for refugees and to treat them with fairness. As Jewish Canadians, we join other faith groups, legal organizations, and settlement workers in calling on our government to do our share for the vulnerable people fleeing Syria. Specifically:

1. To put in place flexible provisions to allow family members of Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and recognized refugees to enter Canada by issuing Temporary Resident Permits, with the possibility of access to permanent residence later.

2. In close consultation and coordination with sponsorship agreement holders, to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees from refugee camps within the next year. The UNHCR recently requested countries to settle 100,000 Syrian refugees. Canada has traditionally agreed to resettle 10 per cent of UNHCR requests.

3. That all pending applications for Syrian refugees be processed expeditiously, and that in no case should the processing of a refugee claim take more than one year.

4. That processing of Syrians not replace or divert any resources from other refugee or family reunification programs.

Refugees from Syria cannot afford to lose any more time. People are in crisis, and the world is watching. Prime Minister, the government must act now. We would be pleased to meet with you or members of your staff to further discuss this urgent issue.

Yours very truly,
.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv
Rivka Augenfeld
David Berger, former Ambassador to Israel
Dr. Philip Berger
Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld
Bernie Farber
Mitchell Goldberg
Valerie Hyman
Michele Landsberg, OC
Maureen Silcoff
Jon Telch
Ken Rosenberg

The Jewish Refugee Action Network (which Berger is a Director of) was a major player in lobbying then PM Harper to take in so-called Syrian refugees.

Was Berger “ever” working for Canadians? Even during his several terms as an MP, or his tenure as Ambassador to Israel? Or was he a refugee lobbyist this entire time?

7. David Berger’s Many Roles

  • Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section)
  • Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
  • Jewish Refugee Action Network
  • associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees
  • former President of the Canadian Football League
  • former Member of Parliament
  • former Ambassador to Israel

8. David Berger’s Law Practice

David Berger, B.A., B.C.L.
David Berger, B.A. (Toronto) 1971; B.C.L. (McGill) 1975, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1986.
David relies on a unique experience in elective office, diplomacy, business, and law in advising and representing his clients.
.
From 1979 to 1994, David served as a Member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the constituencies of Laurier and St-Henri-Westmount.
.
From 1995 to 1999, David served as Canadian ambassador to the State of Israel, representative to the Palestinian Authority and High Commissioner to Cyprus.
.
Earlier in his career, from 1975 to 1979, David was executive vice-president of the Montreal Alouette Football Club, Inc. In 1978-1979, he served as President of the Canadian Football League.
David assists people in applications for temporary and permanent residence, including work and study permits and visitor visas, skilled worker applications, business immigration, family sponsorships and humanitarian and compassionate applications.
.
He represents clients in refugee claims, appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division, and judicial review applications to the Federal Court of Canada and the Quebec Superior Court.
David speaks English, French and Spanish.
.
David is a member of AQAADI (L’Association Québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l’immigration), the Canadian Bar Association (Immigration Section), the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Jewish Refugee Action Network, and an associate member of the Canadian Council for Refugees.
.
David is a director of several not for profit organizations including the Canada International Scientific Exchange Program (CISEPO), the Jerusalem Foundation of Canada, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (Canada), and the Trevor Williams Kids Foundation.

9. Israel Refuses To Take Refugees

During a solidarity visit to Tel Aviv last Thursday, Netanyahu, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Culture Minister Miri Regev toured south Tel Aviv and vowed that the government would “give back” the neighborhood to its Israeli residents.

Netanyahu has previously said the government would take a three-pronged approach to the issue: a security fence along the Egyptian border, which has already succeeded in significantly reducing the number of migrants who cross into Israel from African countries; increased enforcement against those employ illegal migrants and migrants who break the law; and the ministerial committee, which the prime minister said he will lead himself.

Expulsion to a third country is largely unprecedented in the Western world. Italy and Australia signed similar agreements with third-party countries — Italy with Libya, and Australia with Malaysia — but both proposals were shot down by local courts. In both cases, courts ruled the bills inconsistent with international law and the 1951 UN convention on refugees — to which Israel is also a party.

Interesting. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel claims that the migrants in the country are not refugees, and seems content to deport them. Where is the outrage of people like David Berger? If Canada should do its part to take in people in a vast humanitarian effort, why the outrage at Israel refusing to do the same?

Netanyahu wants to keep Israel a Jewish nation, and he doesn’t want hordes of very different people irreversibly changing the demographics. Yet Berger, and people like him, see nothing wrong with forcibly remaking the west.

Why isn’t the former Ambassador to Israel lobbying for Israel to take refugees and open up its borders? After all, isn’t humanity and compassion supposed to be universal? Why the double standard?

TSCE #14: Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburgh Cares & Solidarity Across Borders Coordinates Illegal Crossings At Roxham Rd

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

CLICK HERE, for Bridges, Not Borders mainpage.
http://archive.is/SwCTX
CLICK HERE, for the BNB “about” section.
http://archive.is/n7ci7
CLICK HERE, for “why” people are crossing illegally.
http://archive.is/sRw1v
CLICK HERE, for BnB media page.
CLICK HERE, for BnB encouraging asylum shopping.
http://archive.is/D61Wd

irregular-arrivals-at-the-border-background-information-janjul2019-en
CLICK HERE, for a list of recent UNHCR publications.
http://archive.is/bYe0S

Articles On BNB website
bridges_not_borders_briefing_on_stca_english
stca_legal_challenge
guardian_haiti

CLICK HERE, for CBC, Frances Ravensbergen and Sue Heller.
http://archive.is/lYllx
CLICK HERE, for a VPR article on Roxham crossings.
http://archive.is/DfGzD

CLICK HERE, for Plattsburgh Cares mainpage.
http://archive.is/yWdbn
CLICK HERE, for Plattsburgh cares, humanitarian support.
http://archive.is/a5tI3

CLICK HERE, for Solidarity Across Borders’ homepage.
http://archive.is/oGtlX (2018)
http://archive.is/XjrUY (2020)
CLICK HERE, for SAB supporting illegal migrant caravans.
http://archive.is/LeIED
CLICK HERE, for SAB pushing sanctuary cities.
http://archive.is/0zUKG
CLICK HERE, for SAB, let’s open the borders.
http://archive.is/5uuJN

2. BnB Doesn’t Believe In Borders

Also, the original links for the YouTube videos above are here and here

Earlier in 2017 President Trump signed executive orders that suspended the refugee admission program and allowed for widespread arrest and deportation of undocumented people in the USA. This means that people needing protection can be sent back to their countries of origin where they may face torture, persecution or even loss of life. Yet, this is prohibited under international law.

Trump has also withdrawn Temporary Protected Status from citizens of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras. This will come into effect in late 2019. The Haitians had fled to the USA following the disastrous earthquake in 2010. Haiti was hit hard again by Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and is still in a very bad state, facing huge problems of homelessness, poverty, illiteracy, violence against women and indentured child labour (see PDF Guardian article below).

For all the above reasons many people no longer feel safe in the USA and want to seek asylum and safety in Canada. But they face a hurdle in the 2002 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the USA which came into effect in 2004.

The STCA means that, if someone crosses into Canada from the USA at an official border crossing and asks for asylum, they will be sent back to the USA, unless they fall under one of four exceptions to the Agreement. However if they cross the border at an irregular crossing such as Roxham Road, the Agreement does not apply. They can then make a claim for refugee status. That is why many people are choosing that route, so as to not risk being sent back to the USA and being unable to make a refugee claim in Canada in the future.

There are two issues here. The first one is: can the USA really be considered to be a safe country for refugees? The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International don’t think so and have launched a legal challenge to the STCA (see PDF files below including our Briefing document). The second issue is that of irregular crossings. Given the STCA, most asylum seekers are in a ‘catch 22’ situation: it’s not safe for them to stay in the USA and it’s not safe for them to enter officially. The 1951 Refugee Convention, ratified by Canada, says that states shall not penalize asylum seekers if they enter a country irregularly, providing they present themselves without delay to the authorities. Section 133 of the (Canadian) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also states that people seeking asylum will not be prosecuted for irregular entry into Canada.

People crossing irregularly are not ‘illegal immigrants’ as has been wrongly asserted. Nor are they ‘queue jumpers’, as refugee claims are treated as received. We believe the STCA should be revoked, so that everyone seeking asylum could enter Canada safely and with dignity at an official border crossing. This is especially important during the winter or any period of extreme weather. During the winters of 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, many people suffered hypothermia and frostbite during irregular crossings into Canada and have lost fingers and toes. Tragically, in spring 2017, a woman from Ghana, Mavis Otuteye, died while trying to cross from Minnesota into Manitoba.

Straight from the horse’s mouth. This group believes that everyone should be allowed to enter Canada, and this includes from the United States. The fact that the U.S. gives asylum to tens of thousands of people each year seems to not matter.

3. BnB Encourages Asylum Shopping

URGENT MESSAGE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: If you have applied for asylum in the USA (or in the United Kingdom, New Zealand or Australia) you are no longer entitled to the full independent refugee determination process in Canada. Instead you only have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) hearing conducted by a government official. You will be able to have a lawyer or immigration consultant present with you. You need to be aware that the PRRA is a much less thorough process and has a low success rate. However, if you are successful you will be recognized as either a refugee or a protected person in Canada. Please consider this carefully before deciding to enter Canada either via Roxham Road or at an official Port of Entry.

Why would you publish this information, unless it was to help advise so-called “refugees” to circumvent the process by entering the U.S. under false pretenses, and then come illegally to Canada?

4. BnB Coordinates With “Plattsburgh Cares”

We have close connections with members of Plattsburgh Cares, a group that supports refugees who want to cross into Canada. We’re also in contact with Solidarity Across Borders (Montreal), as well as with various groups, committees, and institutions that support refugees locally and in Montreal (including UNHCR).

That admission came from the about page. As for what Plattsburgh Cares claims to provide:

Let us know what support you can offer. Here’s a partial list of what we need:
-Translation. The refugees who come through the area speak a variety of languages. If you are proficient in any second language and would like to help, let us know.
-Transportation. Individuals may need help getting to the grocery store, doctor’s appointments and so forth.
-Legal advice. The refugees need access to qualified individuals with knowledge of immigration law.
-Short-term temporary housing. Some may need access to safe housing for a night or a week or two.
-Long-term temporary housing. Others may need a place for a longer period.
-Clothing. Some may need clothes, especially during the winter months.
-Educational outreach. We will need help getting educational materials into the hands of refugees coming into our region.

None of these items are bad per se. The problem is that this NGO, like many others, has no concern for whether people are in the country illegally. Moreover, they help facilitate illegal border crossings.

5. BnB Worked With Solidarity Across Borders

Our first group activity in September 2017 was a table at the Roxham Road Woolgathering, for which we had made buttons with the theme ‘Refugees Welcome’. We also provided information explaining how the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ between Canada and the USA forces refugees to cross irregularly to prevent being sent back to the USA (see the pages WHY and WHO for this info).

Our second activity was to participate in a demonstration at the border crossing at Lacolle which was organized by the Montreal-based group Solidarity Across Borders. This was a response to the presence at the Lacolle border of far right groups opposed to the irregular crossings of asylum seekers. A local artist created the beautiful ‘Bridges not Borders’ wood cut after which we named our group.

This came from the ABOUT section of Bridges Not Borders. Apparently wanting borders makes you a member of the far right. Now, who is “Solidarity Across Borders”?

Let’s just look at one of the demands of Solidarity Across Borders: free services for all illegals. Not joking. Here is the actual text.

We demand that:
.
everyone living here should have access to free health care in clinics, CLSCs and hospitals. Medical facilities should never ask for information on immigration status. Instead, they should work to provide appropriate and respectful care to all users. We want health care to be accessible to all and support efforts to defend the public health care system.
.
everyone living here should be able to attend school free of charge, regardless of their – or their parents – immigration status. We are in favor of universal education for all, from kindergarten to university, and defend accessible education at all levels and for all people.
.
the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) should not have any right to enter and arrest migrants in hospitals, clinics, shelters, schools, or any space providing essential services; ultimately, the CBSA should not be welcome anywhere in our communities.
.
any person living here should have access to social housing, food banks, unemployment benefits and any other social welfare regardless of immigration status.

This is one of the groups that Bridges Not Borders sees no problem in partnering with. Free services and effective amnesty for all illegals. What could possibly go wrong?

6. UNHCR Admits These Claims Are Bogus

CLICK HERE, for UNHCR 2019 data on illegals.
irregular-arrivals-at-the-border-background-information-janjul2019-en

The majority of asylum seekers had valid status in the U.S. at the time of crossing (often a visitor visa) and only transited in the U.S. for a short period with the intention of claiming asylum in Canada, the American visa being reportedly easier to obtain that the Canadian one.

Others had stayed in the U.S. for a number of years, including persons with pending/denied asylum claims and to a lesser extent, persons whose status in the U.S. had expired.

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), individuals in the U.S. cannot make a claim at the Canadian official border post unless they qualify for an exception to the agreement, such as having a close family member in Canada.
.
The STCA does not apply to those who cross the border in-between official border posts, as at the time they claim asylum, there are already in Canada.

7. Completely Undermining Border Security

This is (partly) why borders are so damn hard to enforce. It’s because organizations like: (a) Bridges Not Borders; (b) Plattsburg Cares; and (c) Solidarity Across Borders are doing what they can do undermine it.

Further, efforts are crippled by the UNCHR, who make it clear that they see nothing wrong with illegal crossings, and hamstring local efforts to stop it. Efforts in court are at best mixed, since the “rights” of illegals must be balanced against those of society’s.

Finally, corrupt politicians (both government and controlled opposition), do little to nothing to stop this problem. In short, border security COULD be a very straightforward issue, if the system weren’t rigged to prevent that.

This is disheartening, to say the least.

TSCE #13: Canadian Council For Refugees, Lobbying To Open Our Borders

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

CLICK HERE, for CCR lobbying efforts since 1997.
http://archive.is/pHoQN
CLICK HERE, for CCR Communications Reports filed.
http://archive.is/xSrFC

CLICK HERE, for 2018/2019 tax information.
http://archive.is/FanEL

CLICK HERE, for CNN on DNA testing at US/Mex border.
http://archive.is/Ob6BT

CLICK HERE, for CCR supports Bill C-6, citizenship for terrorists.
http://archive.is/q1Kih

2. Context For This Article

Canadians should have control over their own laws. They should be drafted by and for Canadians. This should not be a difficult or controversial topic.

However, one organization, the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), is attempting to lobby Canada’s politicians to create more “refugee” friendly laws. This has been going on for over a decade, and seems to have been a long term effort.

Yes, the CCR is one of the groups trying to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement in the Toronto Federal Court. However, this article will focus more on the political efforts that CCR has undertaken. Indeed, CCR has been busy trying change our laws.

3. CCR Lobbying The Federal Government

Here is an alphabetical list of those who have been lobbied by the Canadian Council for Refugees since 2008.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Sacha Atherly, Policy Advisor | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Matthieu Bélanger, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Jacques Cloutier, Vice-President | Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Dawn Edlund, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Steve Foster, Senior Policy Advisor (specializing in social justice issues) | House of Commons
Ralph Goodale, Minister | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Sadia Groguhé, MP, Deputy Critic Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism | House of Commons
Alyx Holland, Office of the Minister of Public Safety Canada | Public Safety Canada (PS)
David Hurl, Director of Policy and Parliamentary Affairs | Public Safety Canada (PS)
Ahmed Hussen, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Jenny Kwan, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister | Citizenship and Immigration Canada
David Manicom, Assistant Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
John McCallum, Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Marta Morgan, Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kyle Nicholson, Director of Policy | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Kim Pate, Senator | Senate of Canada
Olga Radchenko, Director of Parliamentary Affairs | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Murray Rankin, Member of Parliament | House of Commons
Ali Salam, Chief of Staff | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
Oline Twiss, Policy and Stakeholders Relations Officer | House of Commons
Richard Wex, Associate Deputy Minister | Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)

Now, let’s take a look at some specific proposals that CCR is advocating for. Sections 4-10 cover the most important ones. But those are by no means all of them.

4. CCR Challenges Canada/US S3CA

US-Canada safe third country agreement – oppose denial of access to refugee determination in Canada on the basis of the Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canadian Council for Refugees is one of the groups aiding a challenge in Toronto to strike down the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement. If this were to be successful, it would mean that (even at official border ports), so called “refugees” from the US could simply stroll in and be legally entitled to a hearing.

5. CCR Opposes DNA Testing

Interestingly, they also oppose DNA testing. (see the last section for the screenshot). Now why would any responsible organization be doing this? Wouldn’t they want to ensure that children are being reunited with their true, biological relatives?

Washington (CNN)The Department of Homeland Security will start a DNA testing pilot program next week to help identify and prosecute individuals posing as families in an effort to target human smuggling, two department officials confirmed to CNN.

The Rapid DNA testing, as it’s known, involves a cheek swab and can, on average, provide results in about 90 minutes, a senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said.

The pilot program will run for two to three days in two border locations.

It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to address the swell of migrants, predominantly families and children from Central American countries, at the border using a wide variety of technology and increased resources to fight illegal immigration.

That was an American article, but it also raises an interesting question here. If there is a risk of child smuggling or child trafficking, why WOULDN’T the Canadian Council for Refugees want to ensure that true families are being reunited? Do they want to aid and abet smuggling and trafficking?

6. CCR Against Custody Req’t For Illegals

Immigration detention policies – advocating for the end to the immigration detention of children and families and for reduction in immigration detention, including through the introduction of fair and effective alternatives to detention.

Why should people in the country illegally, or accused of other crimes while not a citizen be locked up for any reason? Perhaps self deportation would be in everyone’s best interests….

7. CCR Challenges Removing Criminally Inadmissible PR

Removals of permanent residents on the basis of criminal inadmissibility, particularly in the wake of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act made in 2013. CCR’s concern relates to lack of due consideration of humanitarian and compassionate factors in making removals, particularly of long-term residents.

8. CCR Challenges Deportations To Certain Countries

Removals to situations of risk – calling for suspension of removals to countries of generalized risk and policies ensuring individuals at risk have removal deferred.

9. CCR Promotes Amnesty For Illegals

Regularization of persons without status – promoting measures to allow persons in Canada without status to obtain permanent residence, including advocating for regularization of “legacy” claimants, ie. those who made a refugee claim before 15 December 2012.

This is exactly what it sounds like. The Canadian Council for Refugees is lobbying for amnesty-for-illegals, which will create a path to permanent residence, and presumably citizenship at some point.

10. CCR Wants Canadians To Foot The Bill

Availability of legal aid to refugee claimants and other vulnerable migrants, including the role of the federal government in providing adequate funding to provinces to cover the costs of legal aid.

It wouldn’t really be complete without ensuring that Canadians were on the hook paying for these people’s legal costs, now would it?

11. Some Government Funding CCR Gets

  • City of Montreal
  • Canadian Heritage
  • City of Victoria
  • Government of Quebec
  • Federal Government (IRCC)

While CCR undoubtedly has some private donors, it is a recipient of Government aid. Or to be more precise, it receives taxpayer aid.

12. Info From Canada Revenue Tax Filings

Receipted donations $94,255.00 (22.94%)
Non-receipted donations $17,110.00 (4.16%)
Gifts from other registered charities $117,291.00 (28.55%)
Government funding $5,000.00 (1.22%)
All other revenue $177,168.00 (43.13%)
Total revenue: $410,824.00

Receipted donations $80,885.00 (9.85%)
Non-receipted donations $221,686.00 (27.01%)
Gifts from other registered charities $208,696.00 (25.42%)
Government funding $38,086.00 (4.64%)
All other revenue $271,506.00 (33.08%)
Total revenue: $820,859.00

Receipted donations $85,242.00 (12.44%)
Non-receipted donations $47,860.00 (6.99%)
Gifts from other registered charities $103,198.00 (15.06%)
Government funding $142,513.00 (20.80%)
All other revenue $306,250.00 (44.70%)
Total revenue: $685,063.00

Receipted donations $93,961.00 (12.99%)
Non-receipted donations $49,488.00 (6.84%)
Gifts from other registered charities $119,054.00 (16.45%)
Government funding $109,905.00 (15.19%)
All other revenue $351,132.00 (48.53%)
Total revenue: $723,540.00

More detailed information

13. Corporate Documents

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

14. CCR’s Previous Attempt On S3CA

In 2007, the CCR (along with Amnesty International, and the Canadian Council of Churches) were successful in getting the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down.
2007.safe.3rd.country.struck.down

However, in 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that these groups didn’t have standing to bring it themselves.
2009.fca.appeal.overturns.ruling

Now, the trio (Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugees, and Canadian Council of Churches) are at it again. They’ve taken up the cases of “refugees” from the US who want this law struck down.

15. CCR Supported Bill C-6 (Citizenship for Terrorists)

CCR calls for further amendments to Citizenship Act to reduce barriers and make all citizens equal
The Canadian Council for Refugees published today its submission on Bill C-6, welcoming the introduction of amendments to the Citizenship Act and calling for further changes to provide equal access to citizenship and fair process.
.
“We need to bring down barriers to citizenship, especially for already disadvantaged groups such as refugees, the elderly, and women,” said Loly Rico, CCR President. “In line with Canada’s international obligations, we encourage the government to craft a new citizenship regime to which all applicants will have equal access without discrimination.”
.
Bill C-6 mostly reverses changes made under the previous Bill C-24, which took effect in 2015. The CCR welcomes the changes that will give refugees and other newcomers earlier access to citizenship, which will lead to better integration.
.
Bill C-6 also rightly re-affirms the equality of all citizens by eliminating provisions allowing for dual citizens to lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism” and requiring applicants for citizen to have an “intent to reside in Canada”.
.
While Bill C-6 contains many good measures to strengthen citizenship, other changes are also needed to remove barriers and end second class citizenship. The CCR is calling on Parliament to amend the bill to:
Create a right to apply for citizenship for youth under 18 who do not have a parent or legal guardian in Canada.
Create a system to exempt people from citizenship fees if they can’t afford them.
Provide better accommodation for applicants with disabilities.
Prevent long wait times by requiring the government to process applications within a reasonable time.
Stop the use of citizenship applications to launch a process to strip status from former refugees (through cessation).
Provide better procedural rights for loss of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation.
Restore Canadian citizenship to second generation born abroad to Canadian citizens. In the alternative, at least give citizenship for those who would be otherwise be stateless.

Yes, the CCR supported Trudeau’s Bill C-6, which would have stripped Canadian citizenship away from dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason. Way tp pick a winning issue.

16. CCR Is A Political Organization

Despite the presumption that charities or NGOs simply act for a god cause that they represent, this is not really the case here. The Canadian Council for Refugees has a political branch to it, which is trying to change Canadian laws. Let’s summarize a few:

  • Trying to strike down Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
  • Opposing DNA testing for refugees
  • Removing immigration detention
  • Permanent residence for criminal inadmissibles
  • No deportation to various countries
  • Amnesty/PR for illegals
  • Taxpayer funded court services
  • Citizenship for terrorists

Those are just a few of the things that CCR lobbies for. It is a political organization deliberately lobbying to weaken our borders even more. It’s time to call a spade a spade.

TSCE #12: The Zionist Roots Of Amnesty International

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

CLICK HERE, for National Post article on S3CA challenge.
http://archive.is/R7JvO
CLICK HERE, for Amnesty Int’l Federal lobbying efforts.
http://archive.is/6Aaj2
CLICK HERE, for Pinnacle Public Affairs, Titch Dharamsi.
http://archive.is/1B3oJ

CLICK HERE, for Peter Benenson, founder of Amnesty International.
http://archive.is/0Vzub
CLICK HERE, for Flora Solomon (Benenson), mother of Peter Benenson.
http://archive.is/mLYW8
CLICK HERE, for the Benenson Society, named for Peter Benenson.
http://archive.is/XfPd
CLICK HERE, for the Benenson Society archives.
http://archive.is/lpVwc
CLICK HERE, for UK Independent obituary on Peter Benenson.
http://archive.is/w8KjQ
CLICK HERE, for Guardian article on Flora Solomon (Benenson).
http://archive.is/plnqO
CLICK HERE, for legacy.com article on Benensons/AI.
http://archive.is/Z7uql
CLICK HERE, for NY Times on Grigori Benenson (Paywall)
http://archive.is/0FpCR
CLICK HERE, for Jewish Press article on AI.
http://archive.is/WfdT4

2. Why Should Canadians Care?

Amnesty International operates in countries across the world, including Canada. It is one of the groups attempting to further open Canada’s borders, by getting the Safe Third Country Agreement struck down in Federal Court.

2018.Diner.Cases.To.Be.Consolidated
2018.calling.more.witnesses
do.we.need.more.intervenors
2019.McDonald.No.More.Intervenors

Hypocrisy from Prothonotary Milczynski and Chief Justice Crampton
Milczynski.Consolidates.Cases
Crampton.Transfers.Consolidated.Cases

While that is obviously a very serious case, let’s look at some other instances of Amnesty International trying to weaponize the Canadian Courts. While striking down the S3CA (and effectively allowing open borders) is a huge issues, it is not at all the only things Amnesty does.

3. AI Lawfare In Canadian Courts

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 (CanLII), [2008] 4 FCR 546

Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FCA 401 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2007 FC 1147 (CanLII)

Amnesty International Canada v. Canadian Forces, 2008 FC 162 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 426 (CanLII)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Amnesty International Canada, 2009 FC 918 (CanLII), [2010] 4 FCR 182

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 73 (CanLII)
Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998 (CanLII)

Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc., 2013 ONSC 1414 (CanLII)

Garrick v. Amnesty International Canada, 2011 FC 1099 (CanLII), [2013] 3 FCR 146

Isakhani v. Al-Saggaf, 2006 CanLII 42605 (ON SC)

Jacobson v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 4 (CanLII)

Mohammad v. Tarraf, 2019 ONSC 1701 (CanLII)

Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 120 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada), 2013 ONSC 1878 (CanLII)

Tanudjaja v. Attorney General (Canada) (Application), 2013 ONSC 5410 (CanLII)

This is of course no where near the entire list, but Amnesty International has been quite busy using Canada’s courts for its own political goals.

Strange that they are granted “public interest standing” to do these things, but ordinary citizens are not. This of course refers to not allowing Canadian citizens standing to close the loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

4. Amnesty International Lobbying Efforts

Although it’s record in the Federal lobbying registry is brief, it is there. Amnesty International has been lobbying the Government with respects to the International Convention on Human Rights.

A more interesting story is on the lobbyist Titch Dharamsi:

Titch Dharamsi, Principal
Titch Dharamsi brings over 15 years of senior public sector and government relations experience to your cause. He has served as lead consultant to a number of major national and international organizations in areas as diverse as tax policy, mining, and international trade. He has an established an impressive record of success in meeting client objectives.
.
While in national government, Titch served as the Senior Policy Advisor and Executive Assistant to a senior federal Cabinet Minister. Prior to that he was a consultant in the corporate finance division of an international consulting company, where he advised on public-private partnerships. Titch also served in the Ontario government as an aide to various Ministers and the Premier, and as an Executive Council Member of a provincial agency.
.
Titch concluded his post-graduate studies at Cornell University, where he was appointed a Fellow of the Institute for Public Affairs and where he founded and edited a prominent public policy journal.
Titch has also contributed to numerous community activities. He has served as Chair of Medical Education for South African Blacks (MESAB – Canada), Secretary of the Ontario Liberal Party, and President of the Madope Development Corporation, which established agricultural and human development projects in rural Tanzania.
.
Associates
In delivering the results crucial to your organization, Pinnacle engages senior associates from numerous sectors, including leading economists, international trade consultants, and former senior public officials.

He was an influential member of both the Federal and Ontario Liberal parties. Good to know he is “really” independent from the people he lobbies.

5. Canadian Chapter Corporate Documents

2017 Director Changes
Notice Of Financials
Organization By-Laws
Certificate Of Continuance

Amnesty International does have a legitimate branch registered in Canada. Problem is, Amnesty International Canada isn’t Canadian. Instead, it is part of a globalist organization to help open the borders of other nations.

6. Peter Benenson Founded Amnesty Int’l

The Benenson Society is named after the now deceased man, and claims to be carrying out more humanitarian work. The archives of the society list many causes around the world. And indeed, many of them sound great.

Problem is: Amnesty International (Benenson’s legacy) still is devoted to helping masses of people around the world cross borders, often without much concern as to whether it is legally or illegally.

For some perspective, A foundation started by a Russian Zionist Jew is helping FOREIGNERS enter other nations, and seems to care little about the legality of it.

7. Benenson’s Obituary (UK Independent)

Peter Solomon (Peter Benenson), barrister and human-rights campaigner: born London 31 July 1921; married first Margaret Anderson (two daughters; marriage dissolved 1972), second 1973 Susan Booth (one son, one daughter); died Oxford 25 February 2005.

Peter Benenson founded Amnesty (later Amnesty International) in 1961 and thereby became the creator of a human-rights movement which now counts more than a million members in 150 countries. His warmth and generosity of spirit gained him friends round the globe. His modesty was such that decades later many, even at Amnesty, did not realise he was the founder of the organisation.

The Benensons were a Russian Jewish family and Peter Benenson’s maternal grandfather, Grigori Benenson, earned a fortune in Tsarist times from banking and oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution. In London Grigori’s daughter Flora met and married Harold Solomon, a member of a City stockbroking family who had risen to Brigadier-General in the First World War. Their only child, Peter Solomon, was born in London in 1921.

Despite the family riches, his was not a happy childhood. In 1920 Harold was attached to the staff of Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner in Palestine, and they went to live in Jerusalem, an entrancing development for the passionately Zionist and untiringly party-mad Flora.

Awaiting the demobilisation which eventually came in 1947 Benenson studied law, preparing himself for a career as a barrister. He joined the Labour Party and the Society of Labour Lawyers. Without success, he tried three times to win a seat in the Commons despite the help given by such as Clement Attlee, Roy Jenkins and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.

According to the obituary, Peter Benenson, from his mother’s side, was wealthy due to successes in banking and oil. His mother, Flora, was a proud and unabashed Zionist. The family was made up of Russian Jews.

Interestingly, Peter goes by his mother’s maiden name (Benenson), and not his birth name, Solomon. One has to wonder why that is.

8. Guardian Article On Flora Solomon

The Guardian also pushed a piece, on Flora Solomon, mother of Peter Benenson (Solomon). She was very proud of her Russian roots, and Jewish ancestry.

A legacy.com publication outlines the family heritage and comments that:

Born July 31, 1921, Benenson was the grandson of Grigori Benenson, a Russian-Jewish banker, and the son of Flora Solomon, who raised him alone after the death of her husband, British army Col. John Solomon.

In fact, there are several mainstream outlets and blogs outlining who Peter Benenson’s family really was, and his Russian/Jewish heritage. And several claim that Flora has long been a proud Zionist.

9. Grigori Benenson, Peter’s Maternal Grandfather

Russian-Jewish banker who made his fortune in oil. The family left Russia at the time of the Revolution.
.
«BENENSON. On April 4, 1939, at Quenn’s Gate, London, W.1, Grigori Benenson, beloved father of Flora, Fira and Manya, and much-loved grandfather of Mira.” (The Times (London, England), Thursday, Apr 06, 1939; pg. 1; Issue 48273.)

Source: Find A Grave

The New York Times, of all places has information on Grigori Benenson and his wealth. Unfortunately, all of it is behind a paywall. But Grigori Benenson was a Russian Jew who made a fortune in oil and banking. Hence, Peter Benenson was set to go from the start.

Some of the blogs have written that Grigori Benenson was actually related to the Rothschild Family. While that is possible, and quite likely, I haven’t independently verified it. If true, it would certainly explain at least in part how he initially became wealthy.

10. Amnesty Int’l Blurs The Line: Legal/Illegal

Who is a migrant?
.
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that Amnesty International sees international migration as a human right. Again, little to no concern over the legality of these measures.

11. Jews Accuse AI Of Anti-Semitism

Talk about “eating your own”. In this submission from JewishPress.com, Amnesty International is accused of anti-Semitism for criticizing Israel’s expansion into Palestine.

However, according to the report titled “Amnesty International – From Bias to Obsession,” Amnesty has employed people with “open pro-terrorist sympathies, crucially relying on them to provide information upstream that shapes opinion.”

One Amnesty consultant was found to be tweeting support for a terrorist group and sharing advice about hiding the truth to protect what he termed as the “resistance,” a euphemism for terrorist organizations. Another was found advising “factions,” another term for terrorist groups, not to publicly identify “martyrs,” terrorists killed in action, as belonging to terrorist groups.

Amnesty Consultant Hind Khoudary referred to two Islamic Jihad terrorists as “heroes”.

Nadine Moawad, MENA Communications Manager for Amnesty International, referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity” and called for a “full disbanding” of the Jewish state.

“Amnesty’s arsenal is turned towards Israel. All of its departments appear to allocate disproportionate resources to attack Israel. The cumulative effect results in what can only be termed as a never-ending obsession,” Collier wrote.

He also notes “the alignment between Amnesty’s anti-Israel campaigns and the aims of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanction) movement, which leave little room for doubt that it is coordinated rather than coincidental.
The report said that Amnesty “displays a symbiotic relationship with BDS” and thus concludes that “elements within Amnesty International actively seek to promote the destruction of the Jewish state.”

Because there is a religious aspect to some of the Amnesty content detailed in the report, the report concludes that “the cumulative effect of the organization’s unnatural hostility towards Israel is anti-Semitic.”

Perhaps they never got the message who actually founded Amnesty International. But then again, an awful lot of Jews will cry “anti-Semitism” whenever their BEHAVIOUR is criticized. Still, enjoyable to watch. And there are many such articles on this subject.

12. Nothing Grassroots About A.I.

Amnesty International was founded by Peter Benenson, grandson of Grigori Benenson. Grigori was a Russian tycoon due to his successes in oil and banking. Peter’s mother, Flora, was a proud Zionist.

Despite attempts to portray Amnesty as some sort of grassroots campaign funded on very little money, the truth about its founder speaks volumes.

Amnesty is an NGO, whose purpose (among others) is getting “migrants and refugees” from Country A to Country B. From its own website, it appears to blur the line between people entering legally v.s. illegally.

In an amusing twist, Israelis accuse Amnesty of anti-Semitism for its repeated criticism of what goes on in the West Bank. Interestingly, many of the people at AI don’t give Israel a pass for their behaviour.

Amnesty has also been trying for many years to weaponize the Canadian Courts, and is one of the players currently involved in attempting to have the Safe 3rd Country Agreement struck down. It’s yet another example of trying to open OTHER countries’ borders.

TSCE #11: Who Is Using The Courts To Open Canada’s Borders? (Lawfare)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

CLICK HERE, for CanLII home page.
CLICK HERE, for Court can’t treat “safe country” refugees differently than others.
CLICK HERE, for challenge to Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
http://archive.is/ySLE3

2. Dropping Names

  1. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
  2. B’NAI BRITH
  3. CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS
  4. THE CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
  5. THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES

Note: these are not, by any means, all of the immigrant/refugee groups operating in Canada. Nor are these all of the groups who have an agenda. However, they are the main players waging war against Canadians in our courts.

3. Amnesty International

ai.01.certificate.of.continuance
ai.02.bylaws
ai.03.changes.in.directors
ai.04.notice.of.financials

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who take injustice personally. We are campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.

We are funded by members and people like you. We are independent of any political ideology, economic interest or religion. No government is beyond scrutiny. No situation is beyond hope.

Few would have predicted when we started that torturers would become international outlaws. That most countries would abolish the death penalty. And seemingly untouchable dictators would be made to answer for their crimes.

While this all sounds noble, let’s get specific. Let’s address their attitudes towards migrants and refuges (whom they often blur together).

What is Amnesty’s position on migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers?
.
We campaign for a world where human rights can be enjoyed by everyone, no matter what situation they are in. Amnesty has championed the human rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants for decades.
.
We campaign to make sure governments honour their shared responsibility to protect the rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants. We condemn any policies and practices that undermine the rights of people on the move.

And in case you thought it was hyperbolic to claim that Amnesty International blurs the line between refugees and migrants, consider the following:

Who is a migrant?
.
There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin, who are not asylum-seekers or refugees.
.
Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study or join family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters or other serious circumstances that exist there.
.
Lots of people don’t fit the legal definition of a refugee but could nevertheless be in danger if they went home. It is important to understand that, just because migrants do not flee persecution, they are still entitled to have all their human rights protected and respected, regardless of the status they have in the country they moved to. Governments must protect all migrants from racist and xenophobic violence, exploitation and forced labour. Migrants should never be detained or forced to return to their countries without a legitimate reason.

4. B’Nai Brith

bblhr.01.bylaws
bblhr.02.change.registered.office
bblhr.03.amendments
bblhr.04.certificate.of.incorporation
bblhr.05.director.changes

bbno.01.director.changes
bbno.02.certificate.of.incorporation
bbno.03.change.registered.office
bbno.04.notice.of.financials

The Canadian Chapter will tell you what goes on here.

​Established in 1875, B’nai Brith Canada is Canadian Jewry’s most senior human rights advocacy organization and is the only national, independent voice of Jewish Canadians.

Its dedicated volunteers and professional staff are engaged in strong pro-Israel advocacy, as well as combating anti-Semitism, bigotry, and racism in Canada and abroad. B’nai Brith Canada’s wide-ranging educational and social programming, community and volunteer services, housing, and human rights initiatives span coast to coast and reflect the organization’s commitment to “People Helping People.”

B’nai Brith Canada’s Chief Executive Officer Michael Mostyn has guided the organization since taking over in 2014. In 2007, Embassy Magazine, Canada’s highly acclaimed foreign policy weekly, named B’nai Brith Canada the major Jewish non-governmental organization (NGO) with influence in the foreign policy field.

Just as B’nai Brith Canada has grown and evolved over the years in response to changing needs, so has Canadian Jewry undergone many transformations. Throughout, B’nai Brith Canada has employed its successful advocacy model of strong community and results-oriented grassroots activism.

5. Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers

carl.01.directors
carl.02.change.of.office
carl.03.bylaws.2015
carl.04.notice.of.return
carl.05.certificate.of.continuance

Yes, there is an entire organization devoted to helping refugees into Canada, and they are lawyers.

Founded in 2011, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) serves as an informed national voice on refugee law and the human rights of refugees and forced migrants, and promotes just and consistent practices in the treatment of refugees in Canada. CARL carries out its work promoting the human rights of refugees in the courts, before parliamentary committees, in the media, among its membership via bi-annual conferences, and elsewhere in the public sphere.

CARL’s membership includes over 300 lawyers, academics and law students from across Canada. Relying on the broad experience of this membership, CARL has a mandate to research, litigate and advocate on refugee rights, forced migrants and related issues. CARL recognizes that climate change is a major contributor to forced migration.

Wow, climate refugees.
What complete nonsense.

6. Canadian Council Of Churches

And here is a link to their main page.

It’s not really clear why Christians would be trying to facilitate the mass importation of people from cultures who would kill them for being Christians. But maybe this is Darwinism at work.

7. Canadian Council For Refugees

ccr.01.2019.director.changes
ccr.02.bylaws
ccr.03.bylaws.from.2014
ccr.04.certificate.of.continuance
ccr.05.annual.return

They list some 200 organizations that the CCR partners with.

8. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs

CIJA: Foreign Interference In Canada’s Democracy
CIJA’s Assault On Free Speech In Canada
CIJA: Information About This Non-Profit

This was covered in previous articles, but is worth an honourable mention. Although working in the political sphere, CIJA has become very influential in Canadian law, including immigration and refugee law.

In the interests of fairness, we cannot also omit the lobbying efforts of various ISLAMIC groups trying to engage in “Hijrah” (conquest by immigration). Plenty of foreign actors who do not have Canadians’ best interests at heart.

9. Know Your Enemies

These are just some of the players in the war to open Canada’s borders and to replace our population, society, culture, and heritage.

While to some, it may seem honourable what they do, don’t dismiss the long term impacts.

TSCE #10: Does Allowing Illegal Aliens Into Canada Violate International Agreements?

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

Links On Trafficking/Smuggling
CLICK HERE, for UN Review On Smuggling Migrants.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention On Transnational Crime.
http://archive.is/q0XqK
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol Against Human Trafficking.
http://archive.is/cjnJt
CLICK HERE, for UN Opt. Protocol On Rights Of The Child.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for UN Global Initiative To Fight Trafficking.
http://archive.is/Fjuv6
CLICK HERE, for UN Protocol To Prevent/Punish Trafficking.
CLICK HERE, for UN Rights Of The Child, Sale, Prostitution, Porn.
http://archive.is/onmrr
CLICK HERE, for Eliminate Worst Forms Of Child Labour.
http://archive.is/OZQM
CLICK HERE, for the Rome Statute, Int’l Criminal Court.
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t Of Canada On Trafficking.
http://archive.is/RQVYA

CLICK HERE, for Washington Times on child abduction for border crossings.

From S3CA Court Case
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.
CLICK HERE, for hypocrisy in Toronto/Vancouver cases.
CLICK HERE, for appeal in S3CA challenge dismissed.

2. Context For This Piece

Canada has signed several international treaties, relevant to the prevention of trafficking, smuggling, and other exploitation of people. These agreements include:

  • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
  • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
  • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

The purpose, as you can imagine, is for governments around the world to cooperate in preventing these activities from happening. Also, it is to punish those responsible when it does happen. Accordingly, they must be taken seriously.

But what happens when certain governments turn a blind eye to people illegally crossing their borders? What happens when governments enact policies that openly encourage human smuggling and trafficking to occur? Does this not help circumvent the very treaties which are designed to keep vulnerable people safe?

This is a bit of a rhetorical question, but I believe the answers are “yes”. Should make for interesting discussion, especially if this ever gets advanced in court. As outlined in the last article, the appeal of the Prothonotary’s decision was dismissed. This is unjust, considering how big the issue of illegal crossings into Canada is.

3. Link Between Illegal Crossings/Trafficking

More on the research is available in this review. It details the size and scale of smuggling and trafficking, and gives much needed background information on the people who are likely to be involved. The original source is linked here, and well worth a read.

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN abhors smuggling, but fake refugees get a pass)

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.

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.

4. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress/Punish Trafficking

The full name of this treaty is the “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. New York, US November 2000”.

Canada is a signatory to this treaty, and as such, should be expected to participate in good faith. Here is the preamble to the treaty, followed by a few Articles contained within.

The States Parlies to this Protocol,
.
Declaring that effective action to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, especially women and children, requires a comprehensive international approach in the countries of origin, transit and destination that includes measures to prevent such trafficking, to punish the traffickers and to protect the victims of such trafficking. including by protecting their internationally recognized human rights,
.
Taking into account the fact that, despite the existence of a variety of international instruments containing rules and practical measures to combat the exploitation of persons, especially women and children, there is no universal instrument that addresses all aspects of trafficking in persons,
.
Concerned that, in the absence of such an instrument, persons who are vulnerable to trafficking will not be sufficiently protected,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 53/111 of 9 December 1998, in which the Assembly decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental ad hoc committee for the purpose of elaborating a comprehensive international convention against transnational organized crime and of discussing (he elaboration of, inter alia, an internationa.1 instrument addressing trafficking in women and children,
.
Convinced that supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime with an international instrument for the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, will be useful in preventing and combating that crime.
Have agreed as follows:

The goal is pretty straightforward, to create a universal and inclusive agreement on how to combat human trafficking.

The main difference between smuggling and trafficking is one of consent. Smuggled people are willing accomplices, while trafficked people are essentially prisoners. While this treaty specifically refers to trafficked people, the same measures should be taken considered people who are smuggled.

First, you can’t usually tell right away if the person is willing or not.

Second, the nations these people are entering should have some rights.

Article 2
Statement of purpose The purposes of this Protocol are:
(a) To prevent and combat trafficking in persons, paying particular attention to women and children;
(b) To protect and assist the victims of such trafficking, with full respect for their human rights: and
(c) To promote cooperation among States Parties in order to meet those objectives.

Article 11
Border measures
I. Without prejudice to international commitments in relation to the free movement of people, States Parties shall strengthen, to the extent possible, such border controls as may be necessary to prevent and detect trafficking in persons.
2. Each State Party shall adopt legislative or other appropriate measures to prevent, to the extent possible. means of transport operated by commercial carriers from being used in the commission of offences established in accordance with article S of this Protocol.
3. Where appropriate, and without prejudice to applicable international conventions, such measures shall include establishing the obligation of commercial carriers. including any transportation company or the owner or operator of any means of transport, to ascertain that all passengers are in possession of the travel documents required for entry into the receiving State.
4. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with its domestic law, to provide for sanctions in cases of violation of the obligation set forth in paragraph 3 of this article.
5. Each State Party shall consider taking measures that permit, in accordance with its domestic law, the denial of entry or revocation of visas of persons implicated in the commission of offences established in accordance with this Protocol.
6. Without prejudice to article 27 of the Convention. States Parties shall consider strengthening cooperation among border control agencies by, inter alia. establishing and maintaining direct channels of communication.

Our current process of letting the RCMP escort people across the border only to release them a few hours later does the public no good at all. Even if people are being willfully smuggled (as opposed to trafficked against their will), we should not be letting such people enter the country on these terms.

The 2000 agreement Canada signed onto “should” mean something substantive. It shouldn’t allow people to flaunt our laws, with possibly trafficked persons in the group.

5. Rights Of Child Not To Be Exploited

This UN Protocol is called the “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography”.

Considering also that the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development,
.
Gravely concerned at the significant and increasing international traffic in children for the purpose of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
.
Deeply concerned at the widespread and continuing practice of sex tourism, to which children are especially vulnerable, as it directly promotes the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography,
.
Recognizing that a number of particularly vulnerable groups, including girl children, are at greater risk of sexual exploitation and that girl children are disproportionately represented among the sexually exploited,

Article 9
1. States Parties shall adopt or strengthen, implement and disseminate laws, administrative measures, social policies and programmes to prevent the offences referred to in the present Protocol. Particular attention shall be given to protect children who are especially vulnerable to such practices.
2. States Parties shall promote awareness in the public at large, including children, through information by all appropriate means, education and training, about the preventive measures and harmful effects of the offences referred to in the present Protocol. In fulfilling their obligations under this article, States Parties shall encourage the participation of the community and, in particular, children and child victims, in such information and education and training programmes, including at the international level.
3. States Parties shall take all feasible measures with the aim of ensuring all appropriate assistance to victims of such offences, including their full social reintegration and their full physical and psychological recovery.
4. States Parties shall ensure that all child victims of the offences described in the present Protocol have access to adequate procedures to seek, without discrimination, compensation for damages from those legally responsible.
5. States Parties shall take appropriate measures aimed at effectively prohibiting the production and dissemination of material advertising the offences described in the present Protocol.

Article 10
1. States Parties shall take all necessary steps to strengthen international cooperation by multilateral, regional and bilateral arrangements for the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for acts involving the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism. States Parties shall also promote international cooperation and coordination between their authorities, national and international non-governmental organizations and international organizations.
2. States Parties shall promote international cooperation to assist child victims in their physical and psychological recovery, social reintegration and repatriation.
3. States Parties shall promote the strengthening of international cooperation in order to address the root causes, such as poverty and underdevelopment, contributing to the vulnerability of children to the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography and child sex tourism.
4. States Parties in a position to do so shall provide financial, technical or other assistance through existing multilateral, regional, bilateral or other programmes.

This protocol seems reasonable enough. Making sure that children are not being harmed or exploited is a valuable societal function.

However, when we allow people to enter Canada illegally, and release them into the country soon afterwards, we have no way of knowing what will happen. Our system, which rewards people for deliberately bypassing official border crossings does everyone a disservice.

No decent person wants children to be exploited, sexually or otherwise. But having laws that make it easy to do so ensures that it will happen at some point.

6. Eliminating Worst Child Labour

This international agreement is the “CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION AND IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOUR ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE AT ITS EIGHTY-SEVENTH SESSION, GENEVA, 17 JUNE 1999”.

Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “child” shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.

Article 3
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “the worst forms of child labour” comprises:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.

Article 4
1. The types of work referred to under Article 3(d) shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, taking into consideration relevant international standards, in particular Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999.
2. The competent authority, after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, shall identify where the types of work so determined exist.
3. The list of the types of work determined under paragraph 1 of this Article shall be periodically examined and revised as necessary, in consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned.

Article 5
Each Member shall, after consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, establish or designate appropriate mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the provisions giving effect to this Convention.

Article 6
1. Each Member shall design and implement programmes of action to eliminate as a priority the worst forms of child labour.
2. Such programmes of action shall be designed and implemented in consultation with relevant government institutions and employers’ and workers’ organizations, taking into consideration the views of other concerned groups as appropriate.

All of these articles are completely reasonable, and admirable goals. However, to repeat from earlier, how do we enforce these things we have committed ourselves to doing if we aren’t willing to properly enforce a border? How can we make sure the children (and adults too) are being let in under the pretenses we are told?

Without taking the time to check thoroughly, how can the RCMP, (and Border Services) ensure that they are not unwitting accomplices to human trafficking or human smuggling?

7. What If People Aren’t Who They Claim?

Canada of course has other international obligations. These listed are just 3 of them related to prevent of people being exploited.

  • “Protocol to Prevent. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Especially Women and Children. supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime”, in 2000
  • “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography”
  • “ILO Convention 182 concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst forms of Child Labor”

Let’s take a look at what is happening across the U.S./Mexico border: people are abducting children in order to pass as a “family unit” when illegally crossing into the U.S.

The government warned federal judges in 2016 that their attempts to create a catch-and-release policy for illegal immigrant families would lead to children being “abducted” by migrants hoping to pose as families to take advantage.

The court brushed aside those worries and imposed catch-and-release anyway.

Two years later, children are indeed being kidnapped or borrowed by illegal immigrants trying to pose as families, according to Homeland Security numbers, which show the U.S. is on pace for more than 400 such attempts this year. That would be a staggering 900 percent increase over 2017’s total.

This Washington Times article details how adults wanting to illegally cross into the U.S. are actually abducting children to appear as a “family unit”. That’s right, children are being kidnapped to make it easier for others to stay in the United States illegally. An article in May 2019 suggested that 1/3 of “families” crossing were not blood related at all.

Sure, the adults use children to cross the border. What happens to them afterwards?

Is permitting illegal crossings a violation of international agreements? In context, many people who say yes they are.

8. How Diligent Is IRB/CBSA?

This evidence transcript is from a Parliamentary meeting on the illegal crossings going on. Let’s look at a few sections of the testimony.

Spoiler, it’s not very encouraging. 16 month wait times, and it’s based largely on the honour system. Of course, we take people at their word that they, and “their” children, are who they claim to be.


The response team has both operational and adjudicative thrusts. I’d like to underline that this response has not diminished in any way IRB’s ongoing commitment to one of the key objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is the security of Canadian society. For example, the IRB has a publicly accessible policy that requires that the RPD not accept a refugee claim until CBSA has had a reasonable opportunity to complete its security screening. This policy remains in place for all claims, including those heard through the response team. There are other processes related to security matters that I would be happy to discuss during the question period, if they are of interest.

Since July 1, more than 8,000 claims were referred to the RPD. Before this, we were projecting an intake of 40,000 cases for this fiscal year. The strain on the organization to handle this many people's hearings is enormous, as our capacity to hear cases this fiscal year, following a plan of action for efficiency and internal reallocation of funds, is roughly 2,000 per month, or 24,000 per year. 

Naturally, claimants whose hearings are not brought before a decision-maker of the response team in the next two months will wait to be scheduled like other claimants. Wait times before the <strong>Lacolle arrivals were already at approximately 16 months per person</strong>. Intake in the eastern region, in the month of September alone, was equal to the eastern region's intake for all of 2016.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
What kind of lag time would we see in that?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
We have a 16-month wait time for our regular stream. But are you asking me about when the basis of claim form will be expected?
That practice notice is just a temporary practice notice. We’re going to wait to see probably until the end of November before we reconsider whether or not we suspend that practice notice in which case it would go back to 15 days.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
How do you keep track of those people in the meantime? Where are they?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
If you go to our website, it says that you need to submit all the information around tombstone data, like address, and you have to keep us apprised of your changes of address and contact information. If you have counsel or if you have a consultant who is working with you, we need their contact information as well.
We are in contact with them about the scheduling and their claim processing.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
Are either of you aware of any process that CBSA or others would use to make sure they know where all the illegal immigrants that come across are in Canada at all times?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
Do you mean by that, people who have crossed the border irregularly?

Mr. Larry Maguire:
Yes.

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
You have to ask CBSA but we all keep track of the claimants relative to the information they’ve given us. They are responsible for keeping all of us up to date on their changes of address and where they are in the country, which is how my colleague was able to describe where the secondary migration to other cities has happened.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
When you say “they”, is that information that immigration or CBSA has given you, or is it the individuals themselves?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
The claimants are responsible for maintaining their files up to date. Like any court procedure, you would always be responsible to that tribunal for your information. These are very official processes with the claimants.

Mr. Larry Maguire:
You were saying there were 8,000 crossings since September 1, or was it July 1?

Ms. Shereen Benzvy Miller:
That’s the number that had been referred to us since July 1, and we don’t keep the statistics about the number of people crossing. We only become seized with the matter when the referral has been by CBSA or IRCC. Our data are always about our caseload, not about the number of people who have interfaced with IRCC or CBSA.


TSCE #9: Other Accounts Worth Following

(Paula Loves Children, @paulacblades001)

(Titus Frost, 1984. YouTuber)

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, 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.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #10: letting illegals in violates int’l treaties.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #11: Using courts to open Canada’s borders.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #12: Amnesty International’s Zionist roots.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #13: Canadian Council for Refugees’ lobbying.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #14: Bridges Not Borders, Plattsburg Cares, Solidarity Across Borders.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #15: Amb David Berger, Jewish Refugee Action Network, CCR.

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.

TSCE #7: UN Research Into Smuggling and “Irregulars” (Cont’d)

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(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

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

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.

Now let’s get right into the rest of this review.

3. Direct Connection Between Smuggling/Illegals

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
Methodological issues
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.

6.3 Conclusions
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”.

8.3 Conclusions
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?

TSCE #6: UN Blurs The Line Between Smuggling & “Irregular” Migrants

(UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

(There is a connection between smuggling and “irregular migration”)

(UN High Commission on Refugees)

(UN insists terrorists be allowed to return home)

1. Important Links

(Other articles on trafficking, smuggling, child exploitation)
https://canucklaw.ca/tsce-9-other-accounts-worth-following/

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.

2. UN Review On Smuggling Migrants

(Page 11)
1. Introduction
The purpose of this thematic review is to survey existing sources and research papers on smuggling of migrants and to provide a gap analysis of existing knowledge from a global perspective. Indeed, despite the fact that smuggling of migrants has attracted great media and political attention over the last two decades, there has not been any comprehensive analysis of the state of expert knowledge. Great confusion still prevails about what smuggling of migrants is within the global context of irregular migration.

To be honest, I wonder that myself. “Irregular migrants”, which are really illegal aliens, are being who have entered a country illegally, or who entered legally, but remained when their status changed. This could simply be trying to make a distinction where none exists.

Article 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol, requires States to criminalize both smuggling of migrants and enabling a person to remain in a country illegally in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, as well as to establish as aggravating circumstances acts that endanger the lives or safety or entail inhuman or degrading treatment of migrants. By virtue of article 5, migrants are not liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been smuggled. It is therefore understood that the Protocol aims to target smugglers, not the people being smuggled

So, are we to give a pass to the people being smuggled and only focus on the smugglers? What happens if the people being smuggled are a willing part of it?

From a sociological perspective, smuggling of migrants may then include every act on a continuum between altruism and organized crime. Doomernik defines smuggling of migrants as “every act whereby an immigrant is assisted in crossing international borders whereby this crossing is not endorsed by the government of the receiving state, neither implicitly nor explicitly”.

(Page 12)
To the extent that the literature available allows a distinction to be made, the issues of irregular migration and trafficking in persons are deliberately not covered per se by this thematic review, despite the fact that these phenomena are closely connected with smuggling of migrants in practice.

They are not immigrants, but aliens.

Again, it seems to be searching for a difference where none exists. Illegal aliens (or “irregular migrants” in UN duck-speak) are people who enter other countries illegally. People who knowingly aid these illegal aliens are people smugglers. The UN engages in this mangling of the language in order to attempt to separate the two.

(Page 15)
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.

The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academic community, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol. Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work.

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

Finally, we are getting some real honesty. Smuggling helps to facilitate so called “irregular migrants”, who are really illegal aliens. Smugglers transport these aliens, and often obtain false documents for them.

Why doesn’t irregular migration have a universally accepted definition? Is it done deliberately to obscure what is going on?

(Page 15)
2.1.2 Trafficking in persons
Smuggling of migrants must also be differentiated from the concept of trafficking in persons, defined under article 3 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Trafficking in Persons Protocol) as: The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs

This is actually true. There is a difference between voluntarily arranging to come to another nation illegally, and being forced or coerced into doing so. This is a valid distinction.

(Page 18)
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.

Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.

This is surprisingly well written. Smuggling and trafficking are businesses, and the people are the commodity. That being said, if the people are consenting to being smuggled, they are accomplices and not victims.

(Page 21)
The network theory also departs from the migration business theory by looking at the migrant as an actor in the migration process and not merely as an object, as in the organized crime theory. Van liempt and Doomernik have questioned the assumption that smuggled migrants are recruited by criminals and have little to say within the migration process. In their view, the relationship between the smugglers and the smuggled is more complex.

Looking at migrants as actors in the migration process, de Haas also insists on the need to depart from prejudiced views against smuggled migrants. According to him, rather than a desperate response to destitution, migration is generally a conscious choice made by relatively well-off
individuals to enhance their livelihoods
. Detailed discussions of migrants’ profiles and relationships with their smugglers are in chapters 5 and 7.

2.3 Conclusions
Sources reviewed reveal a strong interest among the academic community in analysing the
phenomenon of smuggling of migrants from a conceptual perspective. In particular, experts have debated the link between smuggling of migrants and other forms of transnational movement of persons—in particular irregular migration and trafficking in persons. Recent literature has also attempted to improve concrete understanding of smuggling of migrants through the conceptualization of the phenomenon as a migration business, a security threat or a family (network) business.

Some useful points:

Smuggling is not usually that of desperate people, but rather well-off individuals looking for a better life. The refugee system is being gamed.

Also, there is a clear link between these illegals (no they are not “irregular”) and the smuggling that facilitates this. To suggest otherwise is to blur reality.

The book is some 148 pages, and is far too long to go through in a single article, but do have a read.

3. UN Hypocrisy On People Smuggling

This cannot be overstated. It is extremely hypocritical for the UN to condemn human smuggling, while promoting and excusing so-called “irregular migration”. It is well known that many of these illegals come to the West by means of smuggling.

If smuggling itself is to be rejected by society as a whole, then why is it okay for the accomplices of these smugglers to reap the rewards that come from it?

The UN also insists that nations have an obligation to allow terrorists to return home. Needless to say this endangers the public greatly. You can’t simultaneously expect this, and for nations to have safe borders.

This same behaviour also happens on the U.S./Mexico border. In 2018, the UN facilitated large “caravans” of economic migrants with the intention of bringing them up through Central America and overwhelming the U.S. border. How does this respect national sovereignty in any way at all?

4. Organizing “Irregulars” is Smuggling

As much as the UN would like to blur the line, arranging for migrants to enter other nations without permission is smuggling.

The UN insists that all migrants (even if in these countries illegally) are entitled to basic services. As such, the UN advocates for smuggling. The only reasonable conclusion is that having all these amenities will lead to more people trying to enter illegally.

As much as they try to engage in mental gymnastics, the UN is directly involved in people smuggling. They promote policies that only ensure the smuggling (and trafficking) will continue indefinitely.

The UN document claimed that migration is a huge industry. They were absolutely right about that.