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

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence of women, children.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #5: UNHCR is a party to Canada/U.S. S3CA.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #6: UN blurs line between smuggling & “irregular”.

CLICK HERE, for UNODC on smuggling migrants.
CLICK HERE, for a UN guide in circumventing the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for UN guide: details on S3CA loopholes.
CLICK HERE, for UN insisting terrorists be repatriated.
CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal mass invasion (caravans) into the U.S., despite knowing it is unwanted and illegal.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

2. Context For This Article

This is a continuation to the last article, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. While the basics were laid out before, there is so much more detail to be included. In fact, the UN has done a surprising amount of research on this topic.

Yet they seem to have learned nothing from this research, or the results are being deliberately ignored.

To reiterate from last time: it is extremely hypocritical for the UN to claim that they are AGAINST smuggling and trafficking of people, yet SUPPORT mass illegal entries (which they minimize as “irregular”).

The connection between “irregulars” (or illegal aliens) and smuggling is straight forward. Human smugglers are the people who facilitate and coordinate these mass movements of people. They directly cause these “irregulars”, which the UN demands Western nations provide for. However, the UN, and other groups condemn the smuggling that is at the heart of it. The illegal aliens themselves are willing participants.

The difference between traffickers and smugglers is one of consent. Smugglers take people against their will. While victims of trafficking are not to blame for their situation, they are not legal immigrants either. And calling them “irregulars” deliberately blurs the line here.

A cynic may wonder if the UN is speaking out both sides of its mouth: demanding that Western nations take hoards of people from the 3rd World, all while pretending to reject the smuggling that at least facilitates this mass invasion.

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

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 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.

TSCE #5: UNHCR Is Party To Canada/U.S. S3CA. Consultations Mandatory

(UNHCR: United Nations High Commission on Refugees, has released another guide in how to circumvent the Canada/U.S. border)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: suing for right to illegally enter U.S.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #2: fake refugees gaming the system.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #3: various topics on issue.
CLICK HERE, for TSCE #4: Islamic violence, exploitation of women, children.

CLICK HERE, for the link from the UNHCR.
CLICK HERE, for other UN guidelines on how to exploit loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for review of abuse in Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for review of World Border Congress.
CLICK HERE, for review, suing for right to enter US illegally.
CLICK HERE, for review on “sanctuary” cities.
CLICK HERE, for true scale of illegals in U.S.: 22M?
CLICK HERE, for start up of amnesty program in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for challenge dismissed in closing loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting illegal entry into the US.
CLICK HERE, for link to the Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Government of Canada info on S3CA.

2. The Loophole Written Into S3CA

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

ARTICLE 1
In this Agreement,
“Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.

ARTICLE 4
Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Party of the country of last presence shall examine, in accordance with its refugee status determination system, the refugee status claim of any person who arrives at a land border port of entry on or after the effective date of this Agreement and makes a refugee status claim.

The “land border port of entry” is clear. However, in practice it is becoming such that if you simply bypass the official border ports, you can actually take advantage of it. Poor wording, but it has become a real headache.

From the Government of Canada website, we find the following.

Where the Agreement is in effect
The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
-at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
-by train or
-at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

This clearly was not meant to reward people for illegally crossing the border, provided they do so anywhere other than a port of entry.

3. More Loopholes In S3CA

Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:
-is a Canadian citizen
-is a permanent resident of Canada
-is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
-has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
-has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
-holds a valid Canadian work permit
-holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
-is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.) citizens, permanent residents, or various other statuses, you qualify for an exception to the rule. The “family members” list include: the spouse, sons, daughters, parents, legal guardians, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.

Unaccompanied minors exception
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
-are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
-have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
-do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

Document holder exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
-hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
-hold a valid work permit
-hold a valid study permit
-hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
-are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

Public interest exceptions
Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

Source is here. Okay. Are there is any cases that DON’T meet any of these exceptions?

4. UNHCR Is A Party To S3CA

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

ARTICLE 8
(1) The Parties shall develop standard operating procedures to assist with the implementation of this Agreement. These procedures shall include provisions for notification, to the country of last presence, in advance of the return of any refugee status claimant pursuant to this Agreement.
(2) These procedures shall include mechanisms for resolving differences respecting the interpretation and implementation of the terms of this Agreement. Issues which cannot be resolved through these mechanisms shall be settled through diplomatic channels.
(3) The Parties agree to review this Agreement and its implementation. The first review shall take place not later than 12 months from the date of entry into force and shall be jointly conducted by representatives of each Party. The Parties shall invite the UNHCR to participate in this review. The Parties shall cooperate with UNHCR in the monitoring of this Agreement and seek input from non-governmental organizations.

Source is here. Serious question: why have Canada and the United States signed an agreement that quite clearly gives the UN a seat at the table?

5. UN Supports Caravans Into U.S.

For a walk down memory lane, let’s review what the U.N. was up to in the Fall of 2018.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In coordination with UN refugee agency UNHCR, he said “we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees, and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns,” he added.

Counting on its Mesoamerica Program – funded by the US State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration – IOM is now also able to provide voluntary return assistance to migrants.

“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America and the Caribbean explained, saying the “mixed migration flow” was driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection.

“Nevertheless,” he added, “we are concerned about the stress and demands that caravans place on the humanitarian community and the asylum systems of receiving countries, which ultimately have limited resources to face this challenge or to properly care for and protect migrants.”

According to local authorities, on Monday the Mexican government admitted a second caravan of approximately 1,800 Central Americans who initially started the regularization process, but later opted to continue the trek north without seeking asylum; a third caravan of around 500 Salvadorians crossed in on Tuesday, where most requested asylum; and a fourth group of some 1,700 individuals spent Thursday night in the Guatemalan town of Tecún Umán, on the border with Mexico.

This has been covered in previous articles. The U.N. thinks nothing of coordinating and facilitating massive “caravans” of migrants to dump into the United States, and completely overwhelm their social services and border guards.

The U.N. does not respect the sovereignty of the U.S.’s Southern border. With the above published manual, it becomes clear they don’t support the Northern border either.

6. Border Security Is A Joke

Our agreement with the United States comes with so many exceptions that it is pretty much useless. And if someone doesn’t meet one of the exceptions, they can just fly to New York, and take a cab to Roxham Road. The RCMP will dutifully greet them like bellhops.

Despite the UNCHR deliberately acting to destroy Western borders, the Safe 3rd Country Agreement was drafted in such a way that they are guaranteed a seat at any reviews and modifications that come up.

Not only does the U.N. work to undermine sovereign nations, but they are sure to publish guidebooks to make it easy.

Of course, the illegal aliens entering Canada through underhanded means is nothing compared to the vast LEGAL immigration which is effectively population replacement.

Previously a Federal Court Prothonotary ruled that a citizen has no public or private standing to demand the Court take action against the government. That is being appealed.

The Western World is facing some serious challenges, to put it very mildly. Our politicians, media, and courts are stacked against us.

Canada: Pathway To Permanent Residence For Illegals & Their Families

(Program launched in July: PR-Path for illegals)

(Canadian Labour Congress)

(Canadian Border Services cancelling arrest warrants)

(Nothing new here. Temps becoming permanent residents is old news, and there are many ways to do this.

(Screenshots from 2018 Report to Parliament)

(How the CPC might address this issue)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t website on pathway to permanent resident status for illegal aliens.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Labour Congress.

Previous Articles On Immigration
CLICK HERE, for mass/replacement migration at 1M/year in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK review.
CLICK HERE, for TD article on true scale of replacement migration.

CLICK HERE, for sanctuary cities circumventing borders.
CLICK HERE, for 22M+ illegals in U.S., amnesty programs.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

Each annual report talks about how many “temporary” workers and students come into Canada every year. But how many of them actually leave, and how many simply stay, legally or otherwise?

3. Some Context For This Review

Defenders of mass migration into Canada always defend so-called “temporary” entry into the country. These programs include:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program
(b) International Mobility Program
(c) Student Visas

The main difference (on paper) between TFWP and IMP is that TFWP requires a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), which is a demonstration that a job exists that a Canadian cannot fulfill. By contrast, the International Mobility Program is effectively an open work permit.

While student visas are supposed to be for school, students are allowed to work up to 20 hours per week when class is in session. They are allowed unlimited hours other periods. Student visas are essentially work permits as well.

Despite what critics claim, not everyone returns home after their allotted time in Canada. Some do, certainly, but a lot don’t. Why? Because Canada’s laws make it very easy to obtain permanent residence, or to otherwise extend your stay. And not only can the main applicant stay, but family (typically spouse and children) are often included in this.

Certainly there are other programs than the 3 listed above, but they are 3 of the largest, and important to note.

4. Pathway To Permanent Residence

Ottawa, July 5, 2019 – Canada has launched a new temporary initiative to create a pathway to permanent residency for up to 500 out-of-status workers in the construction industry in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). These construction workers have come to Canada and made contributions to its economy and currently have limited means to regularize their status.

And if this “temporary” initiative is deemed to be successful, then how much will it be extended by? Guaranteed it is not 500 people.

Over many years, even decades, some workers who have come to Canada with valid temporary resident status, and who have filled labour shortages in the construction industry, have fallen out of status. Previous changes, such as “four in, four out”, have resulted in some workers losing their status. These workers have continued to address significant labour shortages in the construction industry, while also contributing to the economy and their communities. Without valid immigration status, these workers and their families have lived in fear and been left feeling very vulnerable. The presence of out-of-status workers in a significant industry leads to depressed wages for Canadians and makes workers vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

Over many years and decades? So the government admits that people have been overstaying visas or work permits for decades. Why hasn’t this been addressed long ago.

Illegals living in Canada leads to depressed wages? I would actually agree, but up to a point. Yes, the extra labour available does drive down wages. However, that would still be the case even if they were “legalized”. It would still be an abundance of cheap labour.

The Temporary Public Policy for Out-of-Status Construction Workers in the Greater Toronto Area responds to the recent parliamentary report on labour shortages in the construction industry in this part of Canada and reflects observations from numerous studies about the vulnerability of out-of-status workers. In the committee’s recommendations, the Government was urged to explore solutions for workers in the construction industry with precarious or no immigration status.

This temporary initiative is a step forward to increase the protection of some of these construction workers and their families, while safeguarding Canada’s labour market and ensuring that Canada can retain the workers it needs to grow the economy and build communities.

Potential applicants will first identify themselves to the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), a national labour organization with many construction industry affiliates in the GTA. CLC officials will determine the eligibility of potential applicants and refer them to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

Source is here. That is exactly as it sounds. People living in the country illegally can sign up for this program, and if accepted, will be on a pathway to permanent residence.

Not that we don’t have large numbers of Canadians who are either unemployed or underemployed. Never mind that Canadians are forced to compete for jobs with people in the country illegally, who are often willing to work less. Never mind the effect of driving down wages.

Ignore the money that gets sent out of the country as remittances, money that should be staying and helping to drive Canada’s economy.

Does anyone truly believe this is a “temporary” program, or that it is going to remain at just a few hundred people? No, once it’s considered “operational”, the next step will be to scale it up.

5. PR Program For Families

Spouses/partners and dependent children can be included in the application for permanent residence.

This detail cannot be left out. This so-called temporary initiative is not just for the worker without legal status. Spouse and children are also eligible to apply under it.

6. Canadian Labour Congress

The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) is proud to be working with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to implement a temporary initiative that will help 500 out-of-status construction workers find a pathway to permanent residence that will end the insecure nature of their employment and immigration status.

Out-of-status workers are people who have come to Canada with valid temporary residence status, but have fallen out of status for various reasons, and have found employment in the construction industry. Without status, these workers have continued to fill labour shortages, while contributing greatly to our society and economy. However, fear of detection, detainment, and deportation drives these workers and their families “underground,” often limiting their access to social programs, and making them vulnerable to employer exploitation and abuse.

The Canadian Labour Congress openly admits that people are working without being legally allowed in (or to remain) in Canada. But who cares, we need the workers.

The purpose of this initiative is to put in place a mechanism for the Government of Canada and the CLC, in the spirit of co-operation and mutual interest, to work together in the identification and referral for processing of applications for permanent residence in Canada of up to 500 out-of-status construction workers in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and their immediate family members (e.g., spouse or common-law partner, and dependent children).

Up to 100 of the 500 spaces for this public policy will be permitted for those who entered Canada as a temporary resident, but who never had authorization to work in Canada.

For some clarification, it is not 500 people INCLUDING family members. Rather, it is 500 people plus their family members.

Nice bait-and-switch here. The program is announced as a means to help WORKERS who have fallen on hard times. However, the CLC admits it will be partially open for people who were never even workers.

Also, this may be poor wording, but is immediate family limited to a spouse and children, or are those just the guidelines?

7. U.S. A Cautionary Warning

Both sanctuary cities and the estimated 22 million or more illegals have been covered here. The U.S. has had many amnesty initiatives, but since the borders are not secure, this doesn’t help the problem. It only encourages much more of it.

Problem is, since Canada doesn’t track people leaving the country (until very recently), we have no way of knowing who has left, and when.

Informal estimates are of 200,000 to 500,000 people living in the Canada, small compared to 22M or more in the United States. However, getting actual substance behind those estimates is difficult. And if this “pilot program” is considered successful, how large will it be expanded to?

8. CBSA “Cancelling” Arrest Warrants

While a separate topic, this is interesting to consider as well. Recently the Canadian Border Services Agency admitted it “cancels” arrest warrants for people it is supposed to deport, but cannot find. The article is mind-blowingly stupid beyond belief.

According to Lemire, the CBSA cancelled more than 1,300 immigration warrants in 2018. It’s unclear how many of these cancelled warrants were for people who could still be in Canada but were not found by the CBSA.

A cynic might wonder whether this is politically motivated, or whether the Border Services wants to appear less incompetent by having less “open warrants” on its books. Either way, it’s disgraceful, and undermines Canadian sovereignty.

9. Forget Deportation, Just Put Them To Work

That seems to be where we are heading. No more “divisive” deportations. Just put them to work, and hand out their new papers. Don’t worry about any of the long term costs.

As has been covered ad nauseum here, LEGAL immigration into Canada is currently at about 1 million per year. That includes people who have entered on some kind of visa, and have a pathway to permanent residence.

This program will not stop at 500 workers and their families. It will be expanded once the structure is in place. It cheapens Canadian citizenship when access to it is so easy.

Sanctuary Cities: An End Run Around Having Borders

(Andrea Horwath ran to be Ontario Premier. She offered the entire Province of Ontario to become a “sanctuary” Province)

(Canadian Labour Congress supports sanctuary cities)

(HuffPo Author Defends Open Borders)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 2004-2018 Immigration Reports to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s immigration now at 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for mass migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for article on U.S. amnesties, illegal immigration.

CLICK HERE, for Andrea Horwath, Ontario NDP leader, supporting making Ontario a “Sanctuary Province”, but refusing to release cost estimates.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto Sun article on costs of illegal immigration.

CLICK HERE, for Montreal becoming a sanctuary city.
CLICK HERE, for Huffington Post article defending sanctuary cities.

2. Horwath Supports Sanctuary Ontario

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath dodged questions Tuesday about how much her campaign promise to declare Ontario a “sanctuary province” for illegal migrants and refugee claimants will cost taxpayers.

Instead, she said providing public services without asking questions about anyone’s legal status in Ontario, or co-operating with federal authorities to determine it, is the humane thing to do.

During the 2018 Provincial election campaign in Ontario, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath campaigned on (among other things), turning Ontario into a sanctuary province. She claimed providing social services to people with no legal right to be in the country was “humane”. Unsurprisingly, she refused to tell the public how much it would cost, fearing a backlash.

To be fair however, Conservative leader Doug Ford supported Toronto becoming a sanctuary city. So did his brother, Rob Ford. Both men claimed to be “populists” yet supported giving illegal aliens (with no right to be in the country), the right to remain in Toronto and receive taxpayer funded services. It also needs to be said that John Tory, the current mayor of Toronto, supports sanctuary cities as well. He used to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Conservatives supporting sanctuary cities in Ontario? Guess they figure the economic growth will offset the erosion of borders and identity.

3. Canadian Labour Congress Supports Sanctuary Cities, 200-500K Illegals

There are an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 non-status migrants in Canada.

Non-status migrants of course is a euphemism for illegal alien/illegal immigrant. It would be interesting to get a source for that estimate. A Toronto Sun article also quoted the 200K to 500K estimate of illegals, but did not provide a source.

Non-status Migrants in Canadian Municipalities
In Canada, non-status migrants live and work in profound and constant fear.

No kidding. They are in the country illegally.

If they are detected, detained, and deported by immigration officers, their lives and families would be uprooted and their chance to be part of our communities and country destroyed. Social isolation and ever-present fear of detection and deportation makes them an “invisible” population in our communities and can take a very heavy toll on their physical and mental health.

So, should we turn a blind eye to this law breaking just because it would greatly inconvenience the people who are doing it?

Migrants also experience increased insecurity and violence as a result of the rise of racism, Islamophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Having sanctuary city designations in municipalities from coast to coast to coast will not only place Canada on the map with respect to responding to a global crisis, it will also mean that Canadian municipalities are taking an active stand against racism and xenophobia.

Rise in anti-immigrant sentiment? Yes, because they are in the country illegally. Nice job of conflating legal and illegal. For a union that claims to represent 3 million people, it’s scary how little it thinks of existing laws.

4. HuffPo Author: Borders As Undemocratic

Sanctuary cities are more than a series of flawed municipal laws and administrative directives. They represent an opportunity to strengthen communities, foster democratic participation, and reframe political organization.

“Sanctuary cities” is a loose term that applies to cities refusing to cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration law. In the U.S. and Canada, so-called don’t-ask-don’t-tell policies ban municipal service agencies from asking residents for immigration status and — if they happen to find out anyway — from providing this information to federal authorities. In this way, sanctuary cities aim to provide policing, health, housing and other municipal services to the residents who lack federal citizenship or immigration status. These cities are defining membership based on who lives in their urban community, and not who can be classified as worthy based on federal status.

This is what sanctuary cities are trying to achieve: they imagine the city as a democratic space where everyone is included and can politically participate. Sanctuary cities refuse to label some residents deserving and others unwanted because of federal status. All residents — independent of national status — belong in the city.

The current fight in the U.S. over sanctuary city policies reflects a wider struggle over democracy and political inclusion, with cities mitigating the effects of failing national policies. When national leaders such as Donald Trump are challenging the core values of democracy, sanctuary cities are stepping in to defend the principles of liberty and inclusion at the local scale. Cities are proving to be the last bastion of safety for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Even for Huffington post, this is nonsense. Apparently, being in the country illegally is nothing to be concerned about. Being treated differently for being here illegally is discrimination. Sanctuary cities are a way to redress this grievance.

Donald Trump is challenging the core values of democracy? So are illegal aliens entitled to voting rights? Are they entitled to weigh in on democratic affairs, despite being in the country illegally?

Residents belong in the city, regardless of immigration status? Okay, then why bother with borders at all? Is seems that borders are discriminatory.

Obvious question: sanctuary cities are the last vestige for people yearning to breathe free, then why go to these countries at all? They don’t seem very warm and welcoming.

5. 41,000 Illegals To Be Deported Vanish

“The agency’s working inventory contains 22,000 individuals with enforceable removal orders, whose whereabouts are known to the agency. The remaining 41,000 cases are individuals with immigration warrants for removal, whose whereabouts are unknown to the agency,” her report states.

Most of those who have disappeared are believed to be failed refugee claimants. In 2003, it was estimated that there were 36,000 missing illegal immigrants.

The article explains how Auditor General Sheila Fraser in 2008 found that 41,000 out of 63,000 (about 2/3) of those with pending deportation orders have simply disappeared. Nicely done. Wonder how many of them are now hiding in sanctuary cities. Guess we’ll never know.

6. Canucks, Put This In Perspective

As bad as this seems for us Canadians, our situation doesn’t hold a candle to the situation going on in the United States.

7. How Bad In The U.S.A.?

Cities and Counties
California
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville

Colorado
Arapahoe County
Aurora
Boulder County
Denver
Denver County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County
Weld County

Connecticut
East Haven
Hartford

Florida
Alachua County
Clay County

Georgia
Clayton County
DeKalb County

Iowa
Benton County
Cass County
Franklin County
Fremont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa City
Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County

Illinois
Chicago
Cook County

Kansas
Butler County
Harvey County

Louisiana
New Orleans

Massachusetts
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Concord
Lawrence
Newton
Northhampton
Somerville

Maryland
Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George’s County

Minnesota
Hennepin County

Mississippi
Jackson

Nebraska
Hall County
Sarpy County

New Jersey
Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Union County

New Mexico
Bernalillo County
New Mexico County Jails
San Miguel

Nevada
Washoe County

New York
Albany
Franklin County
Ithaca
Nassau County
New York City
Omondaga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County

Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane Countyn
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Marlon County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield
Tillamok County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County

Pennsylvania
Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Chester County
Clarion County
Delaware County
Eerie County
Franklin County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Lycoming County
Montgomery County
Montour County
Perry County
Philadelphia
Pike County
Westmoreland County

Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Virginia
Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County

Vermont
Burlington
Montpelier
Winooski

Washington
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
San Juan County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Seattle
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Wallowa County
Whatcom County
Yakima County

8. Various Legal Challenges

This is far from exhaustive, but here are a few court challenges regarding sanctuary cities.

A Judge has ruled that Tucson, AZ can in fact hold a referendum in making the city a sanctuary city. Opponents are considering an appeal.

A Texas law against sanctuary cities is being challenged in Federal Court. Lawyers claim a variety of constitutional issues.

A lawsuit against a Florida law against sanctuary cities is being challenged in a Federal Court lawsuit.

Efforts to block funding for sanctuary cities has been stopped by a San Francisco, CA, judge.

9. Sanctuary Cities Do End-Run On Borders

The Federal Government (regardless of country) should be the one setting its own border security policies. Certainly immigration is a topic to be openly discussed, but that is not the case here.

Sanctuary cities circumvent national governments by providing social services to people who aren’t even allowed to be the in country in the first place.

It is not “failing to be inclusive” by preventing such cities from happening. Rather, it is respecting the laws and the public.

Certainly the Canadian situation is not nearly as extreme as the American one. We have only a handful of “sanctuary cities”, at least for now. The U.S. has 7 sanctuary STATES, and countless cities and counties.

True Scale of Illegals in US: 22 Million? More Amnesty Coming?

(Research into scope of illegal immigration into US)

(Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986)

(George W. Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”)

(From Wikipedia, States are flipping blue)

(Former supporter Ann Coulter sours on Trump’s failure to build the wall)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a 2018 PLOS study, est. 22.1M illegal aliens in US.
CLICK HERE, for a HILL article on research est. of 22.1M illegals.
CLICK HERE, for RealClearPolitics article on death of U.S. citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Pew Research data on illegal aliens.
CLICK HERE, for 2016 Pew Research on methodology.
CLICK HERE, for 1996 to 2017 Department of Homeland Security “yearbook” on entry into the US.
CLICK HERE, for Forbes on health care costs of illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Daily Caller article on education costs.

CLICK HERE, for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, amnesty for illegals.
CLICK HERE, for the 7 amnesties passed by U.S. Congress.
CLICK HERE, for George W. Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” of 2007. In short, yet another amnesty program.

CLICK HERE, for Ann Coulter, costs of illegal immigration.
CLICK HERE, for MIT/Yale study (2018), estimating 22M illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Bear Stearns (2005) estimates 20M illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Barlett & Steele (2004), estimating 3M cross a year.

2. Context For Canadian Public

Why should Canadians care? After all, this is an American problem.

Selfishness aside, we should care. Illegal immigration is wrong, regardless of where it is happening. And what happens in the U.S. happens here. We share many of the same problems.

It should also make Canadians stop and wonder exactly how many illegal aliens are in Canada. Even beyond illegals, mass LEGAL migration also has the effect of changing the demographics, and altering elections. In fact, the ridings with the most immigration were pretty reliable Liberal voters.

It’s also worth wondering if conservatives in Canada would implement some form of amnesty for illegals already here. Even if the entire Canada/U.S. border is declared a port of entry, it does nothing to deport the illegals already here.

If any sort of amnesty were to be granted, wouldn’t that just provide more incentive to come to Canada or the U.S. by whatever means available?

3. Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 (Reagan Amnesty)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act
-required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status;
-made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.
At the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.

Ronald Reagan, who identifies as a “conservative” gave amnesty to 3 million illegals (by some estimates).

Worth noting is that Reagan had overwhelming majorities in his 1984 landslide win. He was not pressured into doing this by Democrats.

Look at the above two U.S. maps. This is what replacement migration has done. It is what amnesty for illegals has done. Several U.S. States have “turned blue” permanently.

Ronald Reagan’s amnesty policies turned California blue (and started the trend). Yet conservatives don’t seem to care that he did nothing to conserve the Republican voting base.

4. Amnesty Measures Over The Years

The Seven Amnesties Passed by Congress
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens

Source is here. As you can see, it never stopped at just one amnesty. There was always another group to be considered.

While items 2-7 in fact were signed into law by Bill Clinton (a Democrat), it’s worth pointing out that Reagan, a Republican, was the one who started the trend in 1986. Furthermore, Reagan wouldn’t be the last “conservative” to propose blanket amnesty policies for illegal aliens.

As with Reagan, Clinton seems to have no issue with granting mass amnesties, even while the border is still not secure. This surely means that

5. Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”

3. To Secure Our Border, We Must Create A Temporary Worker Program
America’s Immigration Problem Will Not Be Solved With Security Measures Alone. There are many people on the other side of our borders who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. This dynamic creates tremendous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone cannot stop.

As We Tighten Controls At The Border, We Must Also Address The Needs Of America’s Growing Economy. The rule of law cannot permit unlawful employment of millions of undocumented workers in the United States. Many American businesses, however, depend on hiring willing foreign workers for jobs that Americans are not doing.

If you read between the lines, Bush has a solution in mind: many or most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. can be put to work, and made to be productive.

But as long as they have economic value, I suppose. Ignore the demographic changes. Ignore the voting changes that will happen. Ignore the culture clash, and tension. Ignore the slap in the face that it causes to people who come to the U.S. legally.

4. We Must Bring Undocumented Workers Already In The Country Out Of The Shadows
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Must Account For The Millions Of Immigrants Already In The Country Illegally. Illegal immigration causes serious problems, putting pressure on public schools and hospitals and straining State and local budgets. People who have worked hard, supported their families, avoided crime, led responsible lives, and become a part of American life should be called in out of the shadows and under the rule of American law.

The President Opposes An Automatic Path To Citizenship Or Any Other Form Of Amnesty. Amnesty, as a reward for lawbreaking, would only invite further lawbreaking. Amnesty would also be unfair to those lawful immigrants who have patiently waited their turn for citizenship and to those who are still waiting to enter the country legally.

The President Supports A Rational Middle Ground Between A Program Of Mass Deportation And A Program Of Automatic Amnesty. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants in the United States. But there should be no automatic path to citizenship. The President supports a rational middle ground founded on the following basic tenets:

Some quotes from the White House, on the subject. Despite the explicit denials, this “is” an amnesty program. Stating publicly that there will not be mass deportations means existing laws will not be enforced. Saying you can work for legalization in fact is the reward that people have crossed the border illegally to get in the first place.

It never seems to dawn on successive administrations that rewarding people for breaking the law only encourages more lawbreaking to happen.

Or more likely, they know but don’t care. There seems to be another agenda at play.

Thankfully, this “reform” eventually fell through. However, Bush also seemed to only pay lip service to the idea of real border security. As long as the U.S./Mexico border is porous, people will keep coming illegally. This reality is undeniable.

6. Donald Trump and “Build The Wall”

Donald Trump (narrowly) defeated Hillary Clinton in November 2016 to win the White House. One major campaign was to build a wall across the U.S./Mexico border. This pledge proved extremely popular, as American are tired of continued illegal immigration, and want a secure border.

However, even Trump’s most vocal supporters have had to face the reality that it wasn’t getting done. 2 years into his mandate, with Republican control of both Houses of Congress, nothing had been built. To be fair though, some Republicans were obstructionist.

While some new parts have been added since the 2018 Midterms, and some existing structures replaced, it seems to fall far short of what supporters were expecting.

7. Financial Costs Of Illegal Immigration

There is a lot of conflicting information of the actual costs to the American public. However, here is one statistic. Forbes estimates that the U.S. public subsidizes health care for illegals to the tune of $18.5 billion per year.

Another estimate comes from the Daily Caller, and suggests that it costs about $44 billion per year to educate children illegally in the country.

That doesn’t even include crime data, which can be tricky to find.

8. Voting Trends By Demographics

It foolish to ignore demographic patterns when it comes to voting. Leftist parties push for more immigration at least in part because they believe it will result in more voters. Hence this will result in better election results.

They aren’t wrong. These patterns absolutely do exist. Could be why leftists have little to no interest in securing the borders. Conservatives have little interest either, but that is economically driven.

In this sense, though, it seems to make no real difference if people have immigrated legally, or are illegals given amnesty. The result is still more voters.

In liberal states like New Jersey, illegals are eligible to obtain driver’s licenses. This is despite (by definition) being in the country illegally. And how do we know they aren’t voting illegally?

9. Illegal Immigration Hurts Everyone

Illegal aliens do access social services that they haven’t paid into. This limits resources for citizens who are in the nation illegally, and who have been paying in.

Undermining the borders is an assault on national sovereignty. Rewarding them with a pathway to citizenship only encourages more of it. Americans are sick and tired of politicians who have little to no interest in enforcing border security.

As for the argument that this generates extra tax revenue: How do you pay U.S. taxes without a Social Security Number? How do you get an SSN without legal status? Even if taxes were withheld, they most likely went into the employer’s pocket.

A possible 22 million people in the country illegally. A nice potential voting bloc, if only they could be given amnesty.

Canada, how many do we have?

10. Ann Coulter Estimates Much Higher

Author and political commentator Ann Coulter suggests that even the 22 million figure is lowballed. She gives various estimates, including that it could be 30-60 million all told. She makes 2 very valid points:

(1) Previous estimates based on self-reporting.
(2) Numbers haven’t changed much over the years, despite continued entries.

That will be the subject of a piece all its own.

Abuse of S3CA & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


CLICK HERE, for previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

OTHER CASES WORTH SEEING


(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

UN PROMOTES ABUSE OF S3CA


CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)
  • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    FROM CANADIAN WEBSITE


    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    Where the Agreement is in effect
    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    CANADA ADMITS US IS A SAFE COUNTRY

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    World Border Congress Meets In Morrocco, March 19-21


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    (1) Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is not intended to be a legally binding contract.

    (2) Challenge launched to close loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

    (3) Calgary Court rules that constitutional challenge on proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly can proceed, subject to challenge expected by Federal Gov’t.


    CLICK HERE, for a link to their main page.
    SPONSORS
    CLICK HERE, for biometricupdate.com.
    CLICK HERE, for findbiometrics.com.
    CLICK HERE, for RapiScan.
    CLICK HERE, for AS&E.
    CLICK HERE, for Gemalto.
    CLICK HERE, for Cellebrite.
    CLICK HERE, for SITA.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN’s response to repatriating terrorists.
    CLICK HERE, for Border Security Report.

    As a bit of a side note: Morocco is also where the UN Global Migration Compact was signed on December 10, 2018.

    Also, I cannot be the only one who thinks such an organization is creepy as hell. Why is there a “global border management”? What happened to countries making their own decisions?

    Who Are These People?
    “The annual gathering of the international border management and protection community will take place in Casablanca, Morocco on 19th-21st March 2019.

    Co-hosted by the Ministry of Interior and General Secretariat for Migration and Border Surveillance of Morocco (Directeur de la Migration at de la Surveillance des Frontieres), the World Border Security Congress is delighted to be welcomed back to the North African country and economic hub of the region.

    The 2019 World Border Security Congress will see the largest international gathering of border security and management policymakers and practitioners from more than 50 countries gather for the 3 day meeting for some great discussions, meetings, workshops and networking with colleagues and peers from the global border security community.”

    Okay, this seems to be a globalist love-fest.

    From Their Main Page

    Current Border Security Challenges:
    – Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance (1)
    – Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (2)
    – Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits (3)
    – Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows (4)
    – Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants (5)
    – Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge (6)
    – ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe (7)
    – Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics (8)
    – Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific (9)

    As we see the continued escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere, international terrorism(10) shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people.

    The world is expected to see a continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.

    International organised criminal gangs and human and drug trafficking groups exploit opportunities and increasingly use the internet and technology to enhance their activities.

    Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.

    Advancements in technology are assisting in the battle to maintain safe and secure international travel. The border security professional still remains the front line against these threats.

    This reads like it was brought to you by the same people who pushed the UN Global Migration Compact. But let’s go through this list a bit. Starting with your points list:

    1/ Testing European consensus and governance? There “is” no European consensus, unless one argues that Europeans are unhappy with what their governments have brought them

    2/ Yes migrants ARE streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. But you promote open borders, which makes this problem all that much worse.

    3/ True, smuggling people IS big business. However, you fail to mention that mass migration, and promoting mass migration is also big business, and it has much the same effect (legal or not).

    4/ Climate change: everyone’s favourite boogeyman. Mass migration has nothing to do with welfare and handouts that economic migrants can get by moving to the West and pretending to be refugees.

    5/ Regarding all of these “unaccompanied child migrants”, it would be interesting to know just how many of them are actually children. This seems to be a widespread scam.

    6/ Yes, Southeast Asia has a migrant crisis as well. However, mass migration to the west is not the solution. All it will do is drain Western nations and cause their collapse.

    7/ ISIS threaten to sends 100,000 fighters to Europe, but globalist organizations like the UN say that we must be compassionate. They also don’t want countries rejecting “citizens” who fight for ISIS.

    8/ If there are border skirmishes going on, all the more reason to shut down borders and heavily restrict, if not outright ban people from certain countries.

    9/ Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without the feminist card.

    10/ Strengthen borders to stop this from coming here.

    11/ Technological advancements? Now that sounds interesting. Seems these people don’t actually want to PREVENT bad things from happening, rather they wish to PROFIT from it happening. In fact, 2 major sponsors: FIND BIOMETRICS, and BIOMETRIC UPDATE, could see a huge surge in business caused by mass migration.

    Here is a quote from the report:

    “Governments around the world need to continue to invest in their border security, as a wide range of threats, such as combating terrorism, controlling the movement of goods and monitoring personnel across international borders, continue to pose challenges requiring round the clock monitoring.”

    What a coincidence: the sponsors of this conference are selling just the tools that governments will need to secure their borders.

    This conference is sponsored by companies that sell:
    A/ Biometric services
    B/ Security screening devices
    C/ Digital and mobile technology

    Is it much of a surprise that mass migration would be PROMOTED by a group and its sponsors who will end up PROFITTING from it? Not really.

    World Border Congress Has Sympathy For ISIS Fighters

    From THIS REPORT:
    “Despite the fact that it is illegal to make an individual stateless, there is strong public opinion in most countries that supports the idea of leaving them to fend for themselves, and it easy to understand why. Whatever prison sentences they receive and deradicalisation they undergo, they will have to be regarded as a potential threat for the remainder of their lives.

    And of course, it is certain that at least some of them will go on to attempt to commit an atrocity sometime in the future.

    So, for most people, stopping their return seems like plain common sense. But would it be the wisest choice? If you leave them stateless, what will happen to them and where will they go?

    It is fairly certain that the Kurds won’t want to be responsible for them for any prolonged period. And the Turkish authorities certainly won’t want to inherit the problem. The most likely outcome is that they will gradually be quietly released or abscond and use underground trafficking routes, new documents and new identities to either return to Europe or go elsewhere to carry on the fight.”

    This group glosses over legitimate security risks posed by mass migration. However, the risks that “do” exist can be managed by purchasing services from the conference’s many sponsors.

    This is disturbing. Want to know what is actually worse?

    UN’s Response To “Foreign Fighters”
    Again, the report is available here.

    3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters.

    1. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.

    2. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

    3. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.

    The World Borders Congress states that it believes that fighters who go abroad have rights. It implies that the safety of the host populations must be “balances” against the rights of terrorists themselves. From the above passages, the UN is clearly on board with this proposal.

    The UN is totally fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for IDEOLOGICAL reasons.

    Sponsors of World Borders Congress is fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for FINANCIAL reasons.

    A partnership made in hell.

    CBC Propaganda #2: Europe Should Have Open Borders

    (An extremely biased CBC “news” piece)

    (The U.N. admits it helps “migrants”, regardless of their legal status)

    (Mastercard and MercyCorps)


    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


    CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

    CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

    Of course, CBC promoting globalism is nothing new. Here is a recent cover of a “non-profit” calling itself Century Initiative. Their goal was to boost Canada’s population to 100 million people by the year 2100. Of course, logistical details, or incompatibility of cultures is not discussed.

    On November 23, Jonathon Gatehouse of CBC released this article. It contained a story whining about how Europe enforcing its borders was putting migrant lives in danger.

    The present article is extremely biased and one sided. It takes issue with Europe protecting its own borders, and denying unending immigration from the third world. It is amazing how an article can both be factually accurate, yet so completely miss the point. CBC is being extremely selective in what information is presents.

    Throughout the article, Gatehouse repeatedly implies that these migrants have the right to reach Europe and live there. The right of European Nations to defend their borders is mention is looked down upon. Let’s go through the article:

    “Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”

    What CBC leaves out is that these are “ILLEGAL” migrants, who do not have permission to enter Europe, let along live there. This point is omitted throughout the article.

    “The European Union’s success in cutting deals to close off the sea routes from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya to Italy, has resulted in an overall drop in the number of migrants arriving on the continent — 128,265 so far this year, compared to almost 187,000 in 2017, and 390,000 in 2016.
    .
    Some are now even arriving in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago 100 kilometres off the Moroccan coast. At least 36 migrants have died trying to make that crossing in 2018, compared to one the year befoore”

    The European Union is not trying to cut off one route for the sake of being a jerk. They are genuinely trying to control their borders with this move. Migrants are trying circumvent this by finding other ways to get into Europe.

    “Yet despite the concerns over the rising death toll, many European nations seem focused on enacting even tougher anti-migrant policies.
    .
    This week, prosecutors in Sicily moved to seize a migrant rescue vessel operated by Medecins Sans Frontières and another aid organization, accusing the groups of illegally dumping of 24 tonnes of “potentially toxic waste” during stops in Italian ports.”

    Gatehouse seems to miss the point of this entirely. European nations are sick of mass illegal immigration and are trying to stop it. If migrants are endangering themselves by finding innovative ways to break immigration laws, then it is not the responsibility of said nations to provide assistance. There is no obligation to aid law-breakers.

    “And soon, Italy’s parliament will vote on a new immigration law proposed by the populist government that will remove humanitarian protections for migrants and block asylum seekers from accessing services. These are moves that UN human rights experts have said will “certainly” violate international law.”

    Gatehouse omits the key detail that these new laws are meant for ILLEGAL immigrants. He seems to think that just showing up against Italy’s will entitles people to free benefits.

    “Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
    .
    “This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.

    Actually, the EU and UN do provide financial assistance for migrants, regardless of their legal status. See this page, from the U.N. website, regarding the “caravan” demanding access to the U.S. See this previous article. Handing out prepaid credit cards to finance “migration” actually is happening.

    “Anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably on the rise in Europe.
    .
    This week, the Guardian newspaper crunched the voting results from 31 European elections over the past 20 years. It found that populist parties have tripled their support and managed to put their leaders into positions of power within 11 different governments.”

    This is true, although Gatehouse bypasses the fact that mass, illegal and uncontrolled immigration directly leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and policies. Throughout the article, there is no mention of European nations having the right to decide for themselves who enters their borders.

    “”I [Hillary Clinton] admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”
    .
    To date in 2018, 2,075 migrants have drowned or gone missing while crossing the Mediterranean.”

    This quote is accurate. However, the connection seems to be lost on the author. And while 2075 may have died, they were trying to get into Europe ILLEGALLY. This is a point Gatehouse avoids altogether. Why should Europe assist those trying to break their laws?

    This is a theme in the entire article: that these migrants have a “right” to enter Europe, and that Europe is causing a humanitarian crisis by not assisting them.

    However, Gatehouse does deserve credit for one thing: not once does he refer to them as “refugees”. he acknowledges that they are migrants looking for a better life.

    TSCE #1: ”Migrant Caravan” Lawyers Sue For Right to Legally Invade U.S.

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


    The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    First Claim: Anyone can enter the U.S.
    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

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

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

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

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

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

    Second Claim: U.S. Laws, Such as the 5th Amendment, Apply Here
    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

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

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

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

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

    Third Claim: Even Fraudulent Claims Must Be Taken Seriously
    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

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

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

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

    Fourth Claim: That The U.S. Is Obligated to Provide For Invaders’ Children
    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

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

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

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

    Fifth Claim: That the U.S. Does Not Have The Right To Sovereign Borders
    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

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

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

    How Does This Play Out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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