Category: Globalism

Posted on

Global News Lies About Full Scale Of “Inadmissibles” Getting TRPs

(3000 people let in since September 2010)

(Global News dropped a bombshell about secret permits given to otherwise inadmissible people to Canada. This understandably shocked people.)

1. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

(a) https://canucklaw.ca/unifor-denies-crawling-into-bed-with-government

2. Important Links

(1) https://canucklaw.ca/facts-figures-the-ugly-truth-about-replacement-migration-in-canada/
(2) https://globalnews.ca/news/6289240/canada-secret-program-grants-visas-to-war-criminals-terrorists-security-threats/
(3) http://archive.is/SAVc7
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/
(5) http://archive.is/wip/G9Lui

Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament
(a) 2004 Annual Report to Parliament
(b) 2005 Annual Report to Parliament
(c) 2006 Annual Report to Parliament
(d) 2007 Annual Report to Parliament
(e) 2008 Annual Report to Parliament
(f) 2009 Annual Report to Parliament
(g) 2010 Annual Report to Parliament
(h) 2011 Annual Report to Parliament
(i) 2012 Annual Report to Parliament
(j) 2013 Annual Report to Parliament
(k) 2014 Annual Report to Parliament
(l) 2015 Annual Report to Parliament
(m) 2016 Annual Report to Parliament
(n) 2017 Annual Report to Parliament
(o) 2018 Annual Report to Parliament
(p) Archived listings of Reports

3. Context For This Article

It is appreciated that Global News has reported on the numbers of foreigners who would otherwise be inadmissible to Canada under a September 2010 change in visa policies. They go on to list the approximately 3,000 people who have been granted Temporary Residence Permits since then. They use the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament as references, and give a link to the 2004 to 2018 reports.

For reference, those reports are often cited on this website, and can be found in the above section.

However, it seemed Global News (either accidently or intentionally) omitted a much, MUCH bigger problem. Between 2002 and 2017, there have been over 186,000 people let into Canada who were otherwise inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

4. What Global News Tells You

(Page 21 of 2011 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

YEAR TRP Issued
2010 17
2011 53
2012 53
2013 280
2014 385
2015 1,063
2016 596
2017 555

This article reports on a new directive to allow previously inadmissible people into Canada if it is deemed to be in the national interest. Not only is this troubling, but the secrecy behind it is alarming as well. Digging into it and publishing the information is a very important thing for the Canadian public.

It’s also pleasing to see that this news outlet took the time to dive into the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament to get numbers for how many people this was happening to. A great bit of investigative journalism.

Presumably this is what Global News refers to, and yes, it does grant the Immigration Minister discretion to hand out permanent residence. Now, in fairness, there is a difference between this provision which allows for PR status, and coming to Canada temporarily under Rule 24(1). Still, if a person is a serious threat, they should not be allowed into Canada, temporarily or permanently.

Humanitarian and compassionate considerations — Minister’s own initiative
25.1 (1) The Minister may, on the Minister’s own initiative, examine the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.
Marginal note:
Exemption
(2) The Minister may exempt the foreign national from the payment of any applicable fees in respect of the examination of their circumstances under subsection (1).

Now, what’s the problem with the original article? Despite going through these reports, they chose not to get into how many foreigners were allowed to live temporarily in Canada, despite being previously barred. This included various criminal and security inadmissibility grounds. It seems bizarre to ignore the scope of the problem while focusing on a small piece of it.

5. What Global News Leaves Out

While this important information to know, there is a much larger picture to consider. Let’s start with the over 186,000 people given Temporary Resident Permits from 2002 to 2017. The overwhelming majority of those are either for criminal inadmissibility, serious criminal behaviour, or failing to comply with regulations.

Specifically, look at Section 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Again, this refers to “temporary” residents, while Rule 25.1 applies to potential “permanent” residents. Still, it is a very important omission to make.

Temporary resident permit
24 (1) A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

(Page 29 of 2004 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 33 of 2005 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 25 of 2006 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 26 of 2007 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 29 of 2008 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of 2009 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of 2010 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 21 of 2011 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

A very interesting situation. Global News (accurately reports on 17 TRPs granted under this new secretive order, with no information available. However, they choose to omit the 12,452 TRP that “were” granted to inadmissible people, the majority being criminal or serious criminal. They also leave out 86 security ineligibilities, and 24 human rights ineligibilities.

And no, this is not a cut and paste job. They really are on adjacent paragraphs.

(Page 18 of 2012 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

Again, this is the actual report to Parliament, and not any editing on my part. Global News (correctly) points out the 53 TRP issued under Rule 25.2(1), but then ignores the 11,526 TRPs handed out to other inadmissible people. Seems to be missing the obvious here.

(Page 22 of 2013 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of 2014 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of 2015 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of 2016 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of 2017 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

(Page 38 of 2018 Annual Immigration Report to Parliament)

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787

How does a serious news outlet go through the same Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration (as done here), and grab the data on 3,000 people let in, but then leave out the 199,000 others who should not have entered?

Seriously, was this done intentionally?

6. Grounds For Inadmissibility

Security
34 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for
(a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests;
(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(c) engaging in terrorism;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c).
(2) [Repealed, 2013, c. 16, s. 13]

Human or international rights violations
35 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for
(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
(b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
(c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association;
(d) being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Special Economic Measures Act on the grounds that any of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(1.1)(c) or (d) of that Act has occurred; or
(e) being a person, other than a permanent resident, who is currently the subject of an order or regulation made under section 4 of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).
Marginal note:
Clarification
(2) For greater certainty, despite section 33, a person who ceases being the subject of an order or regulation referred to in paragraph (1)(d) or (e) is no longer inadmissible under that paragraph.

Serious criminality
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
Marginal note:
Criminality
(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.
Marginal note:
Application
(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered and has not been revoked or ceased to have effect under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
(d) a determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of probabilities; and
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
(i) designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,
(ii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national is found guilty under the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, or
(iii) for which the permanent resident or foreign national received a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Organized criminality
37 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality for
(a) being a member of an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of an offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment, or in furtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence, or engaging in activity that is part of such a pattern; or
(b) engaging, in the context of transnational crime, in activities such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons or laundering of money or other proceeds of crime.

Health grounds
38 (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition
(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;
(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or
(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.
Marginal note:
Exception
(2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply in the case of a foreign national who
(a) has been determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations;
(b) has applied for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances;
(c) is a protected person; or
(d) is, where prescribed by the regulations, the spouse, common-law partner, child or other family member of a foreign national referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
Marginal note:

Financial reasons
39 A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made.
Marginal note:

Misrepresentation
40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
(b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation;
(c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow their claim for refugee protection or application for protection; or
(d) on ceasing to be a citizen under
(i) paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the coming into force of section 8 of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before that coming into force,
(ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act, or
(iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act.

Non-compliance with Act
41 A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and
(b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2) or section 28.
Marginal note:

Inadmissible family member
42 (1) A foreign national, other than a protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member if
(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed circumstances, their non-accompanying family member is inadmissible; or
(b) they are an accompanying family member of an inadmissible person.

All of these grounds for inadmissibility seem pretty important, don’t they? Canadians rightfully don’t want foreigners involved in criminal activity; serious criminal activity; organized crime; human rights violations; espionage; terrorism; or plain old non-compliance to be in Canada. It is very reasonable.

However, that is happening, and happening on a grand scale. Funny how Global News omits all of this, despite reading the same Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. It’s almost as if they selectively chose not to address the much bigger issue.

7. About Those “Inadmissibles” We Let In

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 13,564 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 13,115 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121

Of course, there are other categories for denial of entry, but they didn’t fit into the chart. Pretty disturbing though, just how many “inadmissibles” are actually allowed into Canada.

This is just a bit larger than the 3,000 people Global News wrote about. While it’s appreciated that they do cover defects in Canadian laws and immigration, it seems that they went out of their way to avoid talking about a much, MUCH bigger one.

8. Missing The Bigger Picture

It was definitely nice to see the media using those Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration to help share some detail with the public. It is true that since September 2010, 3000 people who were otherwise inadmissible to Canada were allowed in anyway, under Rule 25.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Where this falls flat, however, is that Global News leaves out that 186,000 people were allowed in under Rule 24(1) of the IRPA. Yes, the media ignored a similar problem that was 62 times the size as the one they pointed out. That information was in the same reports, in fact, on the same pages sometimes, so it wasn’t difficult to find.

Whether accidental or intentional, this is not good journalism.

Posted on

IMM #8: Truth About Birth Rates; Births/Deaths Since 1991

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1310042801#timeframe
(2) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310071001

3. Why Cover This Topic?

It is a commonly repeated globalist talking point that Canada’s population is falling, and that more immigration is needed to keep it going.

While it is true that EUROPEANS are not having enough children to replace themselves, that is not true of other groups, or of Canada in general. In fact, Canada’s population is naturally growing bigger. That is to say, it is increasing at a few hundred people per day, even when deaths are factored in.

People pushing for more and more immigration never really give a satisfactory answer as to WHY it is needed. Claims of funding pensions and economic growth are often cited, but that seems to be a poor long term decision if the culture and makeup of the nation fundamentally breaks down.

Of course the real goal is to replace the (European) stock, culture and heritage. And while those in charge aren’t (yet) killing those European descent outright, mass migration dilutes the voting strength and leads to electoral changes.

Worth noting however, a significant portion of these births likely are the result of birth tourism. Still we should focus on Canadian births instead of immigration.

4. Canadian Births, Deaths, Since 1991

Note: Difference = Live Births – Total Deaths
Note: Per Day = (Difference)/365 or 366

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

In every single year there are hundreds more births per day than there are deaths. While the averages do vary, the result is still overall growth.

Although in the available data, it has dropped form 567 per day to 251 per day at the ends, the reality is that Canada’s population is naturally getting bigger. No immigration is needed for this growth to happen.

5. More Canadian Children, Less Abortion

Canadian women abort about 100,000 babies per year. If those children had actually been allowed to live, the growth in Canada would be nearly double what it naturally is. All that is required is to view and treat them as people, instead of as inconveniences.

Also, is growth really necessary? Sometimes overcrowded areas would benefit from less children. But that it rarely discussed. While Canadians are told the population is dropping, that is not the case, at least not overall.

Immigration is not needed to grow Canada’s population.
Yet it is pushed on us.
Less Canadian children.
Abort Canadian babies.
Birthrates decline.
Import a replacement population.
Connect the dots.

Posted on

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part II

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of book.

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC.
CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy.
CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.

2. Why Focus On This Book?

Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.

That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.

In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.

The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

4. Specific Examples From CCC Book

(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.

(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.

(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.

(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.

(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.

(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.

(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.

(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.

(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.

(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.

(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.

In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.

Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.

The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.

5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research

You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?

It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.

Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.

Posted on

IMM #5(B): Global Remittances & Hidden Costs Of Immigration

(Dilip Ratha’s information from World Bank)

(Pew Research estimates $150B left U.S. in 2017)

(2018: Objective 20 of UN Global Migration Compact)

(2016: Paragraph 57 of NY Declaration)

(2015: Goal 10.7 of UN Agenda 2030)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Important Links

(1) https://blogs.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/mdbrief31_apr_2019_0.pdf
(2) http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/992371492706371662/MigrationandDevelopmentBrief27.pdf
(3) http://archive.is/LSGhr
(4) https://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/migration.pdf
(5) https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/1
(6) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
(7) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/04/11/remittances-developing-countries-deportations-migrant-workers-wb
(8) http://archive.is/EGCr9
(9) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/04/13/remittances-to-developing-countries-edge-up-slightly-in-2015
(10) http://archive.is/C2viK
(11) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/04/21/remittances-to-developing-countries-decline-for-second-consecutive-year
(12) http://archive.is/8C4HU
(13) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/04/23/record-high-remittances-to-low-and-middle-income-countries-in-2017
(14) http://archive.is/JJGeT
(15) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/12/08/accelerated-remittances-growth-to-low-and-middle-income-countries-in-2018
(16) http://archive.is/0qgpZ
(17) https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/remittance-flows-by-country/
(18) http://archive.is/6Get9

3. Context For This Article

Western “leaders” frequently tell people how immigration is a boon to the economy, and that it will bring all sorts of wealth in.

Not withstanding: culture clash, ethnic tensions, increased competition for jobs, added costs when social services factored in, overcrowding, demographic replacement, there is the topic of remittances. Remittances are funds that are sent across borders, typically to family members.

Mass migration enthusiasts routinely claim that people temporarily come to a nation to work, and few intend to stay. Notwithstanding the truth that many (if not most) don’t, does it make it okay if it’s true? How does it enrich a nation when huge sums of money are sent out of the country? How does draining the wealth make it more prosperous?

How big exactly is the issue of remittances? Let’s take a dive into the hard data. Yes, the topic was addressed in this review, but why not dig deeper?

4. Global Migration Compact, Objective 20, 22

OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
36. We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

The UN Global Migration Compact specifically lists making remittances easier and cheaper. Why? To send money back to families. This means that instead of money circulating the host country, much of it will be sent away. Don’t worry, it will get worse.

OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
38. We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country.

Social benefits such as pensions will be able to be transferred from one nation to another. This means countries like Canada will be forced to pay for pensions and such to people that have not contributed to the country over the years. Now, can these paid out social benefits be turned around and sent back to family members in the form of remittances?

How does the first world benefit from this treaty? How does importing people and forcing locals to face foreign competition help? How does driving down the wages help locals? How does sending that money overseas help the local economy?

It doesn’t. But that’s what Canada has been signed up for. All without a democratic mandate of course. Rather than stopping, or even slowing the money leaving Western nations, this agreement aims to make it easier and cheaper.

5. New York Declaration, Para 57

57. We will consider facilitating opportunities for safe, orderly and regular migration, including, as appropriate, employment creation, labour mobility at all skills levels, circular migration, family reunification and education-related opportunities. We will pay particular attention to the application of minimum labour standards for migrant workers regardless of their status, as well as to recruitment and other migration-related costs, remittance flows, transfers of skills and knowledge and the creation of employment opportunities for young people.

In addition to promoting mass migration and cheaper remittances, is the New York Declaration also trying to normalize people working illegally?

6. SDA Agenda 2030, Goal 10.7

10.7 Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies
10.a Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements
10.b Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes
10.c By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent

Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people? Doesn’t that sound a lot like the UN Global Migration Compact? It does, but the same language is written into Agenda 2030 as well. This was signed in September 2015 by Stephen Harper, who calls himself a conservative.

One specific goal is to have the fees for remittances reduced to less than 3%. Why? Because with the mass migration plans that our “leaders” have, replacing the population is only going to continue. So sending money away should be easier and cheaper.

And despite all the talk about these workers being “temporary”, they are not. The bulk of them are not going to leave.

7. World Bank Review: 2016 Remittances

Recently, several high-income countries that are host to many migrants are considering taxation of outward remittances, in part to raise revenue, and in part to discourage undocumented migrants. The list of countries where such taxes are being considered includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates. However, taxes on remittances are difficult to administer and likely to drive the flows underground.

De-risking has the potential to reverse the progress made in reducing remittance costs and adversely impacts broader development objectives. Moreover, the disappearance of regulated and legal remittance providers could divert flows toward informal channels, which in turn could increase anti-money laundering/countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) risks. In August 2016, the U.S. Treasury and federal banking agencies (including the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) released a factsheet aimed at clarifying the AML/CFT regulations and sanctions related to correspondent banking. According to the factsheet, the agencies “do not utilize a zero tolerance philosophy.”

Despite the clarification from the U.S. Treasury and federal banking agencies, global banks have begun to exit or reduce their exposure to the retail remittance business. The banks include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Banamex USA in the United States; National Australia Bank, Westpac Group, and ANZ in Australia; Barclays and HSBC in the United Kingdom; and BBVA in Spain.

The World Bank discusses things that are being considered, such as formally taxing remittances being sent out of the country.

Also keep in mind, this is April 2017, and the New York Declaration has already been signed. The UN Global Migration Compact is to be signed in 2018, and it is expected to drive remittances much higher. Mass migration will be more easily available, so the assumption makes sense.

8. Ratha: World Bank, Remittances

Ratha comments that there is steady year after year growth in the scale of remittances being sent across borders. Of course, the growth varies on region, but in the data presented it is 6-12% consistently.

India, China, Mexico and the Philippines are listed as receiving the highest amount of remittances in 2018. Interestingly, China, India and Philippines are the top 3 sources of immigration in Canada. Mexico being on that list is probably explained by massive immigration (both legal and illegal) into the United States.

Yes, Goal 10(7)(c) of Agenda 2030 is to reduce the fees for remittances to under 3%. Seems like the people involved are only expecting it to keep increasing.

9. Remittance Estimates: World Bank

Let’s take a look at the money flowing in and out of the developed/developing world. One important disclaimer to add: although the World Bank estimates money going in and out of the 1st and 3rd World nations, it doesn’t specify to what degree they cross over, or are just transferred within.

It is fair to estimate, however, that the vast majority of the funds going to the 3rd World are transfers from the 1st. Also, it’s fair to estimate that the majority of fund the 1st World receives are from other 1st world nations.

Year Total ($B) To 1st World To 3rd World Diff.
2013 $581B $177B $404B $227B
2014 $592B $162B $430B $268B
2015 $582B $142B $440B $298B
2016 $573B $144B $429B $285B
2017 $613B $147B $466B $319B
2018 $689B $161B $528B $367B

Sources For The Chart
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.

Hundreds of billions of dollars a year flow annually to the developing world, the majority of it from the Western World. When politicians talk about the financial benefits of immigration, is this what they mean? The pouring of money out of their countries?

10. Pew Research: $150B in 2017 (USA)

Pew Research, among many other things, tracks and estimates remittances sent back. The numbers are staggering, particularly in the U.S. An estimated $150 billion was sent outside the country in the year 2017.

Just think. All that money could have funded Donald Trump’s border wall. In fact, it would fund it several times over. Let’s take a look

Rank Nation Est. ($ Billions)
1 Mexico 30.019
2 China 16.141
3 India 11.714
4 Philippines 11.099
5 Vietnam 7.735
6 Guatemala 7.725
7 Nigeria 6.191
8 El Salvador 4.611
9 Dominican Republic 4.594
10 Honduras 3.769

This table only covers the top destinations for the remittances out of the U.S., but the point should be obvious. It doesn’t really stimulate the “American” economy when so much money is being sent overseas. It disproves (to a large degree) that there is any real economic benefit to this immigration system.

Also worth noting is that large amounts of foreign “temporary” labour has the added effect of driving down wages, as more people will be competing for the same job. This creates an employer’s market. And as we all know, these aren’t really “temporary” workers. Most will try to stay.

True, this focuses on the U.S. situation, but it’s worth covering, as Canada faces the same issues that our Southern neighbours do.

11. Temporary Workers In Canada

(Source: 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

To address the obvious: many temporary workers (and students) will remain in Canada even after their visa is up. Transitioning to permanent resident is usually an option. But even if they don’t, money is still being sent out of the country. Take a look at how many “temporary” workers we have in the TFWP and the International Mobility Program.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 included
2005 included
2006 included
2007 included
2008 included
2009 included
2010 included
2011 included
2012 included
2013 included
2014 included
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Also, it’s worth noting that students are allowed to work up to 20 hours/week, even while school is in session. Many (though not all) do. And Canada has certainly experienced an uptick in workers in recent years.

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

Data for the tables, is in this link. It includes archived listings for the Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration from 2004 to 2018.

And no, not everyone coming to Canada will be sending money back. However, the temptation is there for anyone with family members left behind.

12. Remittances Directly Tied To Immigration

The World Bank is candid in making the connection between immigration and remittances. It is mainly by people who have gone to another country to world, and then send money back for family members.

While this is certainly noble, the money leaving the host nation is money that is not being spent in the host economy. It is money disappearing.

True, the person earning the money does have the right to spend it. However, how does that help the host country, when large sums of money are simply transferred out, year after year? It is a massive drain which could otherwise be spent here.

Posted on

Mark Carney’s UN Role, Climate Finance, Chicago Climate Exchange

(UN: Mark Carney to become Special Envoy for Climate Action & Finance, once he leaves post at Bank of England)

(Notice, from COP25 in Madrid, Spain)

(Carney: businesses ignoring climate change will go bankrupt)

(Bank for International Settlements)

(Chicago Climate Exchange)

1. Context For This Piece

Mark Carney is the current head of the Bank of England, and is the former head of the Bank of Canada. After he leave the BoE, he will take on a UN position as the Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.

Carney will supposedly be working for a token $1/year, which means that money is not the motivation. Rather it is ideological. Okay, so why is he doing this? And why would the UN go an seek out a head of 2 Western central banks? Is there to become a “central bank” of carbon credits and emissions trading? Will nations who don’t cut Carbon Dioxide be hit with extra bank fees, or have their assets frozen or seized?

The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is sort of a central bank for central banks. Debt, credit, interest and monetary policy all come from the BIS. It’s an illusion that individual nations are sovereign. In fact, the Rothchild Family controls the banking for most nations on the planet. So it is extremely powerful. Now, why would a head of 2 central banks (England and Canada) be put in charge of climate action and finance?

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, but a fundamental part of photosynthesis and respiration. An 8th grade science text book would confirm that. So the “science” is bogus, especially when the issue of solar activity is repeatedly ignored.

Also included is Chicago Climate exchange, which Wikipedia describes as “North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil”.

If these “carbon credits” are being bought, sold and traded just as another commodity, then one has to ask the obvious question: how much of this is about the environment, and how much is just a money-making gimmick?

2. Mark Carney, UN Climate Action/Finance

On 1 December 2019, in Madrid, Spain, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of Mr. Mark Joseph Carney, OC, of Canada as his Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. As Special Envoy, he will focus on ambitious implementation of climate action, with special attention to significantly shifting public and private finance markets and mobilizing private finance to the levels needed to achieve the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This will include building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.

We need unprecedented climate action on a global scale. And public and private financial systems must be transformed to provide the necessary finance to transition to low-emission and resilient systems and sectors. The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance as we build towards the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Glasgow in November 2020

Mr. Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance and later serving as the Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013). He was born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, Canada in 1965. He received a bachelor’s degree in Economics from Harvard University in 1988. He went on to receive a master’s degree in Economics in 1993 and a doctorate in Economics in 1995, both from Oxford University.

Carney’s announcement sounds impressive, but let’s be clear: this is about wide scale wealth transfer. The claims about environmentalism and saving the planet are just pretexts for doing so.

It’s interesting to tap a former banker (heads of both Bank of Canada and Bank of England). Does he plan to use this “climate finance” agenda the same way that central banks control national finances?

Climate modelling over any length of time has never worked. Why? Because models are just guess, predictions. They aren’t proof of anything. And despite claims to the contrary, the people doing the estimating know so little about the environment that such precise predictions aren’t realistic. Also, scientific research is frequently politically driven.

3. Announcement From COP25 In Madrid

The UN Secretary-General has outlined the “increased ambition and commitment” that the world needs from governments during the coming days of the COP25 UN climate change conference which opens in Madrid on Monday, calling for “accountability, responsibility and leadership” to end the global climate crisis.

The “social dimension” of climate change must also be paramount, so that national commitments include “a just transition for people whose jobs and livelihoods are affected as we move from the grey to the green economy.”

Mr. Guterres said at least $100 billion dollars must be made available to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation and to take into account their “legitimate expectations to have the resources necessary to build resilience and for disaster response and recovery.”

A statement from the Spokespersons’ office said his tasks would include “building the frameworks for financial reporting, risk management and returns in order to bring the impacts of climate change to the mainstream of private financial decision making and to support the transition to a net zero carbon economy.”

The Bank of England Governor has held numerous positions in finance in both the private and public sectors and will become a member of UN staff at the point at which he ceases to work for the Bank. He also served, from 2011 to 2018, as Chair of the Financial Stability Board and Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008-2013.

“The Secretary-General will count on Mark Carney to galvanise climate action and transform climate finance”, as the UN looks to next year’s 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), due to take place in Glasgow, Scotland.

COP25 in Madrid. Pardon the sarcasm, but these questions need to be asked: if climate change is such a pressing matter, why have they not accomplished their goals in 25 annual conferences? Why do we finish one conference and immediately schedule another? If burning fossil fuels is so harmful, then why do tens of thousands of people have to fly across the world? Why not video conference?

Guterres admits that at least $100 billion needs to be raised. Okay, very expensive agenda.

It’s also admitted that a lot of this money won’t be used for “climate change”. Instead, it will be used to pay off people whose livelihoods have been destroyed.

Carney is a former central bank head (UK and Canada), Is he in this role to remake the climate change scam this way? Is the UN going to establish a sort of “UN central bank” to regulate and control carbon taxes?

4. Is This Just A Protection Racket?

From a piece by YourNews.com:

LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.

“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.

From the Guardian:

Companies and industries that are not moving towards zero-carbon emissions will be punished by investors and go bankrupt, the governor of the Bank of England has warned.

Mark Carney also told the Guardian it was possible that the global transition needed to tackle the climate crisis could result in an abrupt financial collapse. He said the longer action to reverse emissions was delayed, the more the risk of collapse would grow.

From a piece by Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) – Businesses that fail to adapt to climate change will go bust, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said on Wednesday, but others will be able to profit handsomely from funding green investment.

“Companies that don’t adapt – including companies in the financial system – will go bankrupt without question. (But) there will be great fortunes made along this path aligned with what society wants,” Carney told Channel 4 News.

There are many more articles on the subject, but the above describes it bluntly. Carney, in his new role, is making it clear that businesses that don’t adapt will go bankrupt. In fairness, this could simply be grandstanding to make headlines. However, Carney could actually be sincere about it.

Now, this “could” be interpreted to mean that they will simply not be able to keep up with changing conditions. But a more likely meaning is that companies who do not play along will be shut down — one way or another.

If this is the latter case, then this is nothing more than an elaborate protection racket. Play along, pay your fees, jump through the hoops, etc… Or else, you won’t be doing business here (or anywhere) anymore. More sophisticated than mafia thugs who simply burn down your business, but the basic idea is much the same.

5. A New Form Of Central Banking?

For background information, please review the CENTRAL BANKING articles posted previously on this site. Lots of important detail is given in these other postings.

An interesting article by Christians For Truth suggests that Rothschilds’ central banking cartel is behind the move to force climate action. It quotes the Guardian article and then concludes:

The Rothschilds founded the Bank of England right after the Jews were readmitted to England after having been expelled for 300 years by King Edward I for usury and ritual murder. The BoE was the first central bank to issue money as unpayable debt, the world’s greatest Ponzi Scheme, and it has been the model of all central banks, including the Federal Reserve, since then.

And if you want to understand why the global warming or “climate change” propaganda is pushed 24/7 by the jewish-controlled media, now you know: the Rothschilds are using it as a way of keeping their ever-expanding Ponzi Scheme afloat, and they clearly intend to threaten and punish any businesses that won’t play ball.

While it seems easy to dismiss the article as conspiracy theory nonsense, it is worth a look. Does the Bank for International Settlements engage in this climate finance agenda? Are they getting in on the United Nations’ climate change scam?

And absolutely, BIS does involve itself in the climate change scam. A quick search of “climate finance” yields 1276 results. Search “climate finance Mark Carney” and 76 hits comes up. So it is not at all a conspiracy theory to see cooperation between the banking cartel and the climate cartel. It looks like they are cooperating to screw us over.

Let’s look at some of these articles.

https://www.bis.org/review/r191008a.htm
Mark Carney: TCFD – strengthening the foundations of sustainable finance

https://www.bis.org/review/r160523b.htm
Mark Carney: The Sustainable Development Goal imperative

https://www.bis.org/review/r120622c.pdf
Mark Carney: Financing the global transition

https://www.bis.org/review/r151130f.pdf
Klaas Knot: The role of central banks; the Netherlands Bank and sustainable finance

https://www.bis.org/review/r191029a.htm
Jens Weidmann: Climate change and central banks

https://www.bis.org/review/r190206b.pdf
Climate Change and the Irish Financial System

https://www.bis.org/fsi/publ/insights20.pdf
Turning up the heat – climate risk assessment in the insurance sector

https://www.bis.org/review/r181122b.pdf
Remarks at the Accounting for Sustainability Summit 2018

The above is just a small sample of what is on the Bank for International Settlements’ website. Again, just searching “climate finance” gets 1276 hits. So they are very active on this topic, and have been for years. It’s not at all a stretch to think that the BIS and the UN will collaborate to control Carbon taxes, and climate finance.

Of course, it’s not clear — yet — how exactly the BIS will be involved in running this scheme. But it’s disturbing, putting one of their operatives at head of the UN “climate finance action”.

6. Chicago Climate Exchange

We started out in 2000 with the idea of transforming the energy markets by creating an electronic marketplace that removed barriers and drove transparency and access.

By staying close to customers, we saw the demand for the efficiency that technology brings and expanded our electronic trading platform into new markets. At the same time we understood that along with liquidity, trust and integrity are central to the effective operation of markets and began investing to build and acquire clearing houses.

As our electronic markets and demand for clearing grew, access to new sources of information became central to our customers and data has increasingly become the lifeblood of markets. We saw this evolution and consistently we advanced our capabilities, building a data business which is complementary to every part of our solution.

Despite the word salad this is an organization that tries to effectively run a climate bond trading market. Setting aside the bogus science, this is an industry that can only survive as long as people keep buying into the scam. Sooner or later, it will collapse.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

This Canada Free Press article, see archive, gives a damning critique of the operation. It also raises point that the biggest shareholder was Goldman Sachs. This is important as Mark Carney worked for Goldman Sachs, and in fact was their managing director of investment banking.

Read the Britannia piece for more information on Carney’s background, but the conflict of interest here is plainly visible.

(1) Carney was a Director for Goldman Sachs.
(2) Goldman Sachs was largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange.
(3) CCE’s existence was based on the climate bonds industry.
(4) Carney is former head of Bank of Canada.
(5) Carney is current head of Bank of England.
(6) Carney used positions at BoC and BoE to promote climate change agenda
(7) Carney promotes climate change with Bank for International Settlements.
(8) Carney gets a UN post to push climate finance agenda.

Mark Carney has been going on about the dangers of climate change for years. Now, is he doing so as a concerned head of the Bank of Canada or Bank of England? Or is he doing so as a Director for Goldman Sachs, and part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange? Pretty hard to tell, isn’t it?

7. Where Does This Lead?

Hard to say for sure. But it looks like the banking cartel and the climate change cartel are effectively working together. Perhaps this is just a way of centralizing and controlling the scheme more efficiently.

However, it is nonsense to think that paying taxes to the UN, or the Bank for International Settlements (or anyone) will make the climate better. It is a money grab, and junk science. Again, Carbon Dioxide, the most commonly cited “greenhouse gas”, is not pollution. It is necessary in order to sustain life.

Even if these taxes were to be avoided, the only way to do so would be to collapse the economy, and get rid of most (or all) of industrialization. If that is the goal, then it’s one that will effectively end Western civilization.

At what point can we call these people traitors?

(1) https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/personnel-appointments/2019-12-01/secretary-general-appoints-mark-joseph-carney-of-canada-his-special-envoy-climate-action-and-finance
(2) https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/12/1052491
(3) https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mark-Carney
(4) https://yournews.com/2019/07/31/1120477/boes-carney-warns-of-bankruptcy-for-firms-that-ignore-climate/
(5) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/13/firms-ignoring-climate-crisis-bankrupt-mark-carney-bank-england-governor
(6) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-boe-carney-idUSKCN1UQ28K
(7) https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2019-07-31/boes-carney-warns-of-bankruptcy-for-firms-that-ignore-climate-change
(8) https://www.theice.com/index
(9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange
(10) https://canadafreepress.com/article/obamas-involvement-in-chicago-climate-exchange-the-rest-of-the-story

Posted on

IMM #11: Facts & Figures About Replacement Migration In Canada

(It’s a constantly repeated lie that temporary workers are only temporary. They will return home once their visas expire, and not become permanent residents.)

(It’s also a lie that students will return home. In most cases, they are eligible for the PGWP, and many transition directly to permanent residents.)

(International Mobility Program, essentially an extension of TFWP, but no labour shortages actually are required. Open work permits)

(If immigration grows our economy, then why is so much money being sent out of the country? Shouldn’t that money be spent here?)

(Making Northern towns unrecognizable is the goal.)

(Agriculture workers have pathway to PR)

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

(Program launched in July: Domestic violence ==> PR-Path)

(CANZUK, possibly the biggest open borders and globalist free trade deal in history, is official CPC policy.)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

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

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

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

2. Context For This Article

As has been reported many times on this site, immigration is nowhere near what is reported in the media. Specifically, when students and so-called “temporary” workers are factored in, it is double or triple what we are lead to believe.

Why does this matter? For a number of reasons. First, it is misleading to omit that these groups are eligible for permanent resident status. That means, most can and will remain in Canada much, MUCH longer than originally stated. It artificially lowballs the immigration rate. Yes, not everyone stays, but many will, especially if they have built roots here.

Second, most people head to the larger cities, which strain to accommodate more and more people. This results in overburdened social services, congestion, and overcrowding. And contrary to conservatives and libertarians, there is a huge financial cost to these influxes.

Third, large scale mass migration has the effect of drastically changing the culture, the societal makeup, demographics (yes, race) and the voting patterns in elections. For example, importing large numbers of people who want hate speech laws, strong gun control, and socialist rule means that voting starts trending that way. Problem is, that no one ever voted to have their societies so changed.

Fourth, it brings incompatible cultures together, again, with no mandate from the host population. Islamic Hijrah (conquest by immigration) is the most obvious, but not the only one. There’s also Chinese expansion, Sikh nationalists, and replaying of ethnic conflicts, just to name a few.

In short, mass migration completely remakes a nation, and a lot of it in negative ways. Problem is (again), no one voted for it. And repeatedly lying to minimize the scale of it only serves to make things worse.

3. Annual Reports To Parliament

2004.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2005.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2006.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2007.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2008.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2009.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2010.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2011.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2012.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2013.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2014.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2015.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2016.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2017.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2018.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament
2019.annual.immigration.report.to.parliament.

CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

Note: From the 2004 to 2018 reports (which cover 2003-2017) we can take the “temporary” migration data as well. For this, “temporary” refers to:
(a) Temporary Foreign Worker Program;
(b) International Mobility Program;
(c) Student Visas

Here’s a snapshot of these “temporary” programs from the years 2015 to 2017. Source is the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.

Year TFW Int Mobility Student
2015 73,016 175,967 218,147
2016 78,402 207,829 265,111
2017 78,788 224,033 317,328

Above are the “temporary” categories listed in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament. Now, let’s take a look at all of it in context. Data is compiled from the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports (which covers the years of 2003 to 2017)

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 143,444 364,796
2005 235,824 147,204 383,028
2006 262,236 156,622 418,858
2007 251,649 174,361 426,010
2008 236,758 229,834 466,592
2009 247,243 272,028 519,271
2010 252,179 263,618 515,797
2011 280,681 278,433 559,114
2012 248,748 289,225 537,973
2013 257,887 318,383 576,270
2014 258,953 333,175 592,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

The public is (wrongly) told that the annual averages were about 250K during the Harper years (2006 to 2015) and creeping up to 300 under Trudeau, and expected to hit about 350K in a few years. Big problem is that these claims deliberately leave out the pathway-to-PR students and “temporary” workers.

While these programs are touted as “temporary” this is extremely misleading, as an awful lot of people from all streams will remain in Canada. Either they will transition to permanent residents, or remain in some other capacity.

4. Surge In Student Visas

(UBC Promoting post-graduate options to students)

(University of Calgary and options for foreign students.

(University of Regina promoting permanent residence)

CLICK HERE, for Provincial Nominee Seminar at UBC.
CLICK HERE, for permanent resident information from UCalgary.
CLICK HERE, for URegina on the Sask Immigrant Nominee Program.

The above are just the first 3 that I checked out. In fact, in seems that ALL colleges and universities are offering guidance for their international students on how to remain in Canada after they graduate.

But why would they do that? The powers that be repeatedly assure us that these students are in the country temporarily, and that they will return home afterwards. It’s almost as if these student visas were a form of backdoor immigration.

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

In 2003, Canada issued 60,000 student visas (rounded down) and in 2017 issued 315,000 student visas (again, rounded down). This is more than 5 times the amount, in just a 15 year period.

Sources are the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration. They are listed in Section #3. Now, not everyone will stay in Canada after they are done school. But many will, and our Government makes that very easy.

5. Surge In “Temporary” Workers

Note: in 2014 there was a public scandal regarding the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Word got out as to just how wide spread the program was, and just how many people were being “imported” into jobs that Canadians could do, but who had to be paid more.

The “solution”, if you can call it that, was to break up the TFWP into 2 categories: one where a Labour Market Impact Assessment was needed (LIMA), and one that was not (an open work permit).

In this case, the TFWP required the LIMA, whereas the previously existing International Mobility Program was scaled up (no LIMA required). To summarize, rather than fix the underlying problem, the Government decided to split up the program and call it fixed.

Temporary Foreign Worker Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 included
2005 included
2006 included
2007 included
2008 included
2009 included
2010 included
2011 included
2012 included
2013 included
2014 included
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Split Up Of TFWP

To offer greater clarity and transparency, the current TFWP is being reorganized and new International Mobility Programs (IMPs) are being created. The TFWP will now refer to those streams under which foreign workers enter Canada at the request of employers following approval through a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The new IMPs will incorporate those streams in which foreign nationals are not subject to an LMIA, and whose primary objective is to advance Canada’s broad economic and cultural national interest, rather than filling particular jobs. These reorganized programs will improve accountability, with Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) being the lead department for the TFWP, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the lead department for the IMPs. In addition, ESDC will publicly post data on the number of positions for temporary foreign workers approved through the TFWP on a quarterly basis, and will post the names of corporations that receive permission to hire temporary foreign workers through LMIAs.

Source is right here.

For some context, consider that in 2003, about 80,000 temporary workers were admitted into Canada. That contrasts with over 300,000 in 2017 (when TFWP and IMP both factored in). That is nearly 4 times the amount in just 15 years.

CPC Supports Temp-To-PR Pipeline
The Conservative Party of Canada supports both: creating new immigration pilot programs, and transitioning temporary workers into permanent residents. That is listed in Article 139 of their Policy Declaration (found under Governing Documents)

Also worth noting that CANZUK is official CPC policy as well, Article 152 of their Policy Declaration. CANZUK, when fully implemented would allow free trade and free travel between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Effectively, it would erase the borders between those nations. Aside from the obvious problems, other nations like India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Commonwealth could potentially join. Would all of those “temporary” people be PR eligible as well?

To be fair, the People’s Party of Canada, which claims to “open the Overton window” on immigration, never addresses any of the following:
(a) True scale of mass migration;
(b) Temps/Students transitioning to PR;
(c) Importing the 3rd World;
(d) Rapid demographic change;
(e) Changes in voting trends, less conservatism;
(f) CANZUK being implemented

It would be nice if these Annual Reports to Parliament were more detailed in which programs/streams people were transitioning into permanent residents. It would also help for more information on how many people remain in the country but don’t become citizens. Alas, such useful data is lacking.

To address the elephant in the room: not all of the temporary workers do stay in Canada. Similarly, not all students stay in Canada after they graduate. But an awful lot do. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government doesn’t easily provide that information, so it has to be pieced together.

6. Remittances Sent Back Home

The Bank estimates that officially recorded annual remittance flows to low- and middle-income countries reached $529 billion in 2018, an increase of 9.6 percent over the previous record high of $483 billion in 2017. Global remittances, which include flows to high-income countries, reached $689 billion in 2018, up from $633 billion in 2017.

Among countries, the top remittance recipients were India with $79 billion, followed by China ($67 billion), Mexico ($36 billion), the Philippines ($34 billion), and Egypt ($29 billion).

The Brief also reports progress toward the SDG target of reducing the recruitment costs paid by migrant workers, which tend to be high, especially for lower-skilled migrants.

The World Bank estimates that $689 billion was sent in remittances globally in the year 2018. Globalist politicians repeatedly say that immigration brings wealth to the country, but it seems to be a source of draining it.

Global Remittances In Recent Years

Year Total ($B) To 1st World To 3rd World Diff.
2013 $581B $177B $404B $227B
2014 $592B $162B $430B $268B
2015 $582B $142B $440B $298B
2016 $573B $144B $429B $285B
2017 $613B $147B $466B $319B
2018 $689B $161B $528B $367B

CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2013.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2015.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2016.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2017.
CLICK HERE, for World Bank, remittances in 2018.

Biggest Recipients Of US $ (2018)

Rank Nation Est. ($ Billions)
1 Mexico 30.019
2 China 16.141
3 India 11.714
4 Philippines 11.099
5 Vietnam 7.735
6 Guatemala 7.725
7 Nigeria 6.191
8 El Salvador 4.611
9 Dominican Republic 4.594
10 Honduras 3.769

Worth noting that reducing fees for remittances is a goal long held by the UN. It’s as if they expect and promote mass migration to the West.

7. “Inadmissibles” Still Allowed In Canada

Year Permits Cumulative
2002 12,630 12,630
2003 12,069 24,699
2004 13,598 38,297
2005 13,970 52,267
2006 13,412 65,679
2007 13,244 78,923
2008 12,821 91,744
2009 15,640 107,384
2010 12,452 119,836
2011 11,526 131,362
2012 13,564 144,926
2013 13,115 158,041
2014 10,624 168,665
2015 10,333 178,998
2016 10,568 189,566
2017 9,221 198,787

Using the 2004 to 2018 Annual Reports to Parliament on Immigration, we can see that almost 199,000 people who were previously deemed “inadmissible to Canada” were still allowed Temporary Residence Permits since 2002. This is being done under Rule 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Global(ist) News recently reported about the 3,000 or so who were allowed in under a 2010 rule change, and Rule 25.1 of IRPA. However, they missed the bigger picture.

SEC = Security (espionage, subversion, terrorism)
HRV = Human or International Rights Violations
CRIM = Criminal
S.CRIM = Serious Criminal
NC = Non Compliance
MR = Misrepresentation

YEAR Total SEC HRV Crim S.Crim NC MR
2002 12,630 ? ? ? ? ? ?
2003 12,069 17 25 5,530 869 4,855 39
2004 13,598 12 12 7,096 953 4,981 20
2005 13,970 27 15 7,917 981 4,635 21
2006 13,412 29 20 7,421 982 4,387 18
2007 13,244 25 8 7,539 977 4,109 14
2008 12,821 73 18 7,108 898 4,170 17
2009 15,640 32 23 6,619 880 7,512 10
2010 12,452 86 24 6,451 907 4,423 36
2011 11,526 37 14 6,227 899 3,932 11
2012 132,474 20 15 7,014 888 5,206 18
2013 145,589 17 10 6,816 843 5,135 8
2014 10,624 12 2 5,807 716 3,895 14
2015 10,333 3 3 5,305 578 4,315 28
2016 10,568 8 4 4,509 534 2,788 20
2017 9,221 10 5 5,035 591 3,412 121

This is correct. People being denied entry for criminal record, serious criminal records, human rights violations, security risks, terrorism, and the like, are still being given Temporary Residence Permits.

For all those who say “come legally” and it’s okay, guess what? These people are being let into Canada legally. It’s the system that’s broken. Virtually anyone can get into Canada, so should we just skip the formality of having a border?

8. Importing The 3rd World

The tables below are composed form data gathered in the Annual Immigration Reports to Parliament (see Section #3). While this data related to % of people gaining permanent residence, and which countries they originate from, it’s a pretty good indicator of where Canada is importing people from.

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 16.3
#2 India 11.1
#3 Pakistan 5.6
#4 Philippines 5.4
#5 S. Korea 3.2
#6 U.S. 2.7
#7 Iran 2.6
#8 Romania 2.5
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.4
#10 Sri Lanka 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 13.2
#2 India 12.2
#3 Philippines 7.0
#4 Pakistan 4.9
#5 U.S.A. 4.3
#6 Iran 2.8
#7 U.K. 2.6
#8 S. Korea 2.5
#9 Colombia 2.3
#10 France 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12
#2 Philippines 11
#3 India 10
#4 U.S.A 4
#5 U.K. & Colonies 4
#6 France 3
#7 Pakistan 2
#8 Iran 2
#9 S. Korea 2
#10 Morocco 2

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12.8
#2 Philippines 12.7
#3 India 11.2
#4 Pakistan 3.9
#5 U.S.A 3.7
#6 France 3.2
#7 Iran 2.5
#8 U.K. & Colonies 2.5
#9 Haiti 2.2
#10 S. Korea 2.1

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 Philippines 18.7
#2 India 14.5
#3 China 7.2
#4 Iran 4.3
#5 Pakistan 4.2
#6 Syria 3.6
#7 U.S.A. 3.0
#8 France 2.0
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.0
#10 Nigeria 2.0

Note: Of the top 10 countries of origin, only 3 are from European, Western nations (France, the U.S., and the U.K. & Colonies). However, ever U.K. & Colonies is suspect, as it contains people from outside the U.K.

Who would have thought that mass migration of the 3rd World would lead to Canada becoming the 3rd World? This connection is obviously so difficult to make.

This isn’t everyone who stays in Canada, and certainly not everyone who enters Canada. However, it does provide a glimpse into WHERE people are coming from. Canada is importing the 3rd World, and becoming the 3rd World as a result.

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

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

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

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

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Did you think that importing large numbers of people from:
(a) China
(b) India
(c) Philippines
(d) Pakistan
(e) Iran

might be the reason we have such large enclaves of these groups? Think there may be some connection between them? This is not a single year, but a consistent pattern.

9. White Genocide In Action

Year Population % of Canada
1871 3,433,315 98.5%
1881 4,146,900 95.9%
1901 5,170,522 96.0%
1911 7,005,583 94.35%
1921 8,568,584 96.0%
1931 10,134,313 97.7%
1941 11,242,868 97.8%
1951 13,582,574 96.83%
1961 17,653,864 96.8%
1966 – 96.8%
1971 20,763,915 96.3%
1981 22,402,000 93.0%
1986 – –
1986 – –
1996 24,531,635 86.0%
2001 24,678,880 83.3%
2006 25,000,155 80.0%
2011 25,186,890 76.7%
2016 25,111,695 72.9%

Based off the Wikipedia page, it’s sources are: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

To point out the obvious, yes the data table is incomplete. There are a few years missing. However, the overall trend shows an undeniable pattern towards those of European descent declining as a percentage and losing voting power.

Euro Canadians will be a minority in about a decade or so. How well will we be treated then?

10. Truth About Birth Rates

Live Births in Canada: 2013 – 2017
Deaths in Canada: 2013 – 2017

Year Birth Deaths Diff Day
1991 402,533 195,569 206,964 567
1992 398,643 196,535 202,108 552
1993 388,394 204,912 183,482 503
1994 385,114 207,077 178,037 488
1995 378,016 210,733 167,283 458
1996 366,200 212,880 153,320 419
1997 348,598 215,669 132,929 364
1998 342,418 218,091 124,327 341
1999 337,249 219,530 117,719 323
2000 327,882 218,062 109,820 300
2001 333,744 219,538 114,206 313
2002 328,802 223,603 105,199 288
2003 335,202 226,169 109,033 299
2004 337,072 226,584 110,488 302
2005 342,176 230,132 112,044 307
2006 354,617 228,079 126,538 347
2007 367,864 235,217 132,647 363
2008 377,886 238,617 139,269 381
2009 380,863 238,418 142,445 390
2010 377,213 240,075 137,138 376
2011 377,636 243,511 134,125 367
2012 381,869 246,596 135,273 370
2013 380,323 252,338 127,985 350
2014 384,100 258,821 125,279 343
2015 382,392 264,333 118,059 323
2016 383,102 267,213 115,889 318
2017 379,450 276,689 102,761 281
2018 375,390 283,706 91,684 251

It’s a commonly repeated myth that the Canadian population is declining. In fact, it is growing by about an average of 300 people per day, and has for several years. That being said, this is not at the same across groups. Couples European descent have an average of about 1.5 children each, far below the replacement rate.

Truth is demographic replacement is already taking place, even without any immigration. And that leads to the next segment: a groups that WANTS to breed, in order to achieve its goal of world domination.

11. Muslims Taking Over The World

(Muslims man bragging that demographic change will lead to Sharia Law replacing Canadian Law at some point)

This man isn’t kidding about Islam becoming the biggest religious group. The goal is world domination, and they are breeding their way to get it. These findings, from Pew Research.

Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth.

More babies were born to Christian mothers than to members of any other religion in recent years, reflecting Christianity’s continued status as the world’s largest religious group. But this is unlikely to be the case for much longer: Less than 20 years from now, the number of babies born to Muslims is expected to modestly exceed births to Christians, according to new Pew Research Center demographic estimates.

Muslims are projected to be the world’s fastest-growing major religious group in the decades ahead, as Pew Research Center has explained, and signs of this rapid growth already are visible. In the period between 2010 and 2015, births to Muslims made up an estimated 31% of all babies born around the world – far exceeding the Muslim share of people of all ages in 2015 (24%).

The current age distribution of each religious group is an important determinant of demographic growth. Some groups’ adherents are predominantly young, with their prime childbearing years still ahead, while members of other groups are older and largely past their childbearing years. The median ages of Muslims (24 years) and Hindus (27) are younger than the median age of the world’s overall population (30), while the median age of Christians (30) matches the global median. All the other groups are older than the global median, which is part of the reason why they are expected to fall behind the pace of global population growth.

He’s not wrong at all. Pew Research is predicting exactly that. Muslims will become the biggest religious group in a short time.

Of course, the fact that they murder: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, gays, blasphemers, apostates, and different sects of Islam “might” have something to do with those changing demographics. They aren’t exactly tolerant.

12. UN Supports Replacement, White Genocide

This topic was covered previously, but time for a trip down memory lane. The United Nations has been holding “population conferences” since the 1950s. Interestingly, the solution is always the same: more migration from the 3rd World. Not higher birth rates. Not a decline may be okay. Not “piss off” as a response. More mass migration.

(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)

(UN Population Division still hard at work)

UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

UN Global Migration Group

  • Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
  • United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
  • United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  • United Nations Regional Commissions
  • United Nations University (UNU)
  • World Bank
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Not much to add to this abomination, but it is plain and obvious that the replacement agenda is going on at a global level, and has been for decades.

Consider this: the UN was formed at the end of the Second World War in 1945. Less than a decade later, it is already holding population conferences. They continue even now.

13. Multiculturalism Is Genocide

This may seem strange, but consider the following. Forcibly remaking the population without their consent amounts to genocide, as defined by the United Nations. Check out the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide.

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

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

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

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

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

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

14. Where To Go From Here

A moratorium on immigration is the only sensible answer. This “multiculti” experiment is a total failure, and it’s time to put a stop to it. Illegals need to be deported.

Stop Islamic immigration. Permanently. Deport whoever can be legally deported, and ban political Islam. Mosques need to be shutdown wherever possible.

This multicultural push also needs to go. If Canada (or any nation) is to survive, it must be united under one identity.

How did we get to the stage where replacing your population, your culture, language, traditions, and customs is valued as “diversity”? Shouldn’t we preserve what we have?

Put our own people first. Have our own children, more of them, and keep the culture (what’s left of it) intact. Stop sending money away with remittances, stop importing cheap labour, and driving down wages.

It is mind boggling that so-called “conservatives” keep pushing for mass migration from socialist and other left leaning nations. It never seems to dawn on them that importing liberal and socialist voters means that their own base will eventually be replaced. Idiots. But who cares, as long as the cheap labour keeps flowing.