American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Immigration Bad for Us: Book

More news stories on Canada

Mindelle Jacobs, Welland Tribune (Welland, Ontario), October 2, 2009

For years, Canadians have been led to believe that mass immigration is necessary to fill labour shortages, make up for our low fertility rates and finance expensive social programs.

In a shot across the bow of political correctness, a new book by the Fraser Institute argues that these beliefs are myths and calls for a serious debate on Canadian immigration policy.

“Many of the reasons with which Canada justifies its high immigration intake are simply not valid and the economic and social costs are not open to discussion,” writes James Bissett, a former executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service.

“We may not yet have reached the tipping point,” he warns in the book, The Effects of Mass Immigration on Canadian Living Standards and Society. “But if we continue to sleepwalk into the 21st century and ignore this issue, we may find out too late that Canada has been unalterably changed.”

Various contributors weigh in on what they see as the consequences of mass immigration—Canada’s annual immigration rate is the highest in the world—and offer prescriptions for change.

Bissett calls for a temporary moratorium on new immigrants until the backlog has been eliminated.

He points out 80% of our immigrants are not in the skilled worker category but, rather, enter or are allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons or because they’ve been granted refugee status.

Canada needs to update its point system for selecting skilled workers so it better reflects the needs of the labour force, he adds.

In his essay, U. S. academic Vernon Briggs questions the quality of university education in certain immigrant-source countries. Very few Third World nations have elite universities, he writes, noting that only one institution from outside the industrialized world, the State University of Moscow, is on the list of the top 100 universities.

“The only way to ensure that the immigrants chosen will do better is to be more selective,” Briggs writes. “If Canadian universities chose foreign students the way (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) selected immigrants, half their classes would flunk out.”

Herb Grubel, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-editor of the book, examines the feasibility of financing social programs like pensions, welfare and health care and concludes that in order to meet such objectives immigration would have to skyrocket to 165 million by 2050. That year alone, we would have to take in seven million immigrants, he says.

That, he adds, creates the “impossibly large” problem of finding jobs for all those people.

The book also contends that high rates of immigration threaten to undermine our national identity and social fabric.

Canada has become nothing more than a “global suburb” for immigrants with Canadian passports living abroad, argues Stephen Gallagher, of the Canadian International Council, a foreign policy think-tank.

And Salim Mansur, who also writes a weekly column for Sun Media, warns that Canada’s secular, liberal-democratic character and security are endangered by unrestrained immigration.

“Religious or cultural wars are won and lost on the grounds of how confidently and tenaciously antagonists hold to their respective . . . values,” Mansur writes.

Critics will no doubt view this book as an anti-immigrant diatribe. On the contrary, it’s a plea for a smart, retooled immigration policy and a slap in the face to those who would stifle discussion on such a crucial issue.

Original article

(Posted on October 8, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Mike NY wrote at 6:38 PM on October 8:

I recall reading in my New Book of Knowledge encyclopedia’s yearbook, around 1970, a Canadian government report that suggested that, considering Canada’s climate, environment, natural resources, demographics, etc., Canada could be considered overpopulated.

That was when Canada had a population of around 21 million.

40 years later, with a population increase of around 50%, the Canadian government apparently cares more about being politically correct than conserving the natural, and the human, environments.

2 — Anonymous wrote at 7:38 PM on October 8:

The actual report is here:

http://tinyurl.com/ydxuhul

3 — white advocate - Canada wrote at 9:53 PM on October 8:

In the last week there has been much discussion about a report on the labor market in Toronto. The middle class is shrinking while Toronto becomes a city of rich and poor. Many jobs are temporary, part-time, contract, and low-paying without benefits. Immigrants are not doing as well as immigrants in previous generations. Young people are having trouble getting established. This outcome is exactly what has been predicted by economic critics of immigration all along. The liberal newspapers in Toronto can’t admit this obvious conclusion though; they are calling for more social programs and tax redistribution to improve equality in the city. Such is the bind that liberals find themselves in. They can’t admit immigration causes problems because that would invite saying immigrants shouldn’t have been let it. If immigrants are a problem then natives would be permitted to shun them. The consequences of such obvious conclusions shake liberals to their core.

4 — Anonymous wrote at 10:42 PM on October 8:

Poster #1 “That was when Canada had a population of around 21 million.

Yes, that was in 1970 when those 21,000,000 Canadians were at least 95% White compared to today’s downward demographic shift to 84% …and still dropping due to massive influxes of 3rd world immigrants.

The book also contends that high rates of immigration threaten to undermine our national identity and social fabric.

Translation: There are too many NON-white immigrants entering our country that threaten to disrupt and overwhelm our white homogenous people.

Here’s a story that emerged today about a single, Black South African mother of 4 children now living in Canada who’s receiving a (free?) home courtesy of Habitat for Humanity.

Even Blacks from Africa’s most prosperous country of South Africa find themselves living off Canada’s foolish generosity.

I’ve never heard of a similar case where a single, White British mother of four children living in Canada being in the same predicament. Usually, White Brits must pass a stringent points system to qualify for entry, yet somehow we give dead-beats a free pass. Ridiculous!

5 — Anonymous wrote at 1:46 AM on October 9:

That’s too bad. Isn’t Canada the second largest country in the world by land mass? They’ll be a point where whites will wonder where it all went and if they’ll have anyplace left. That is if whites do not completely disappear entirely. Something they appear on course of doing.

6 — HH wrote at 9:47 AM on October 9:

This is just more proof of what we here all know - that placing “multiculturalism” under the microscope always reveals the same reslts; namely failure! The very idea that racial and ethnic “diversity” are some kind of magical strength, is the most pernicious and demonstrably false fiction to be foisted upon western(White)people in millenia!

For how many years now have many of us been shouting, “show us this strength - show us one tangible, objective example of this glorious benefit of ‘diversity’ in practice!” In over a dozen years of 100% racial consciousness, I have yet to hear a single example articulated. I believe that tells us all we need to know.

7 — Jasper wrote at 9:50 AM on October 9:

It is too late already. There are only two options. Either all non-White, non Native American Canadians are kicked out of Canada or conservative Whites take a large portion of Canada and declare independence.

8 — Anonymous wrote at 12:13 PM on October 9:

I suggest Canadians forward the link to their local MPs. I’ve done so for previously released, similar reports and have received quite non-committal responses, but at least my representative has the information.

9 — Geo wrote at 1:52 PM on October 9:

Mike NY wrote:
“I recall reading in my New Book of Knowledge encyclopedia’s yearbook, around 1970, a Canadian government report that suggested that, considering Canada’s climate, environment, natural resources, demographics, etc., Canada could be considered overpopulated.”

That seemed to be the propaganda prevelant in every white homeland in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It gave “our” goverments excuse to economically discriminate against us, driving down birthrates. Not forgeting the part “radical feminism” played also.

Now we’re being swamped with third world immigration because supposedly it’s good for the economy. These immigrants will pay for all our pensions in the future they tell us.

Incompetence or intentional, you decide.

10 — WR the elder wrote at 12:07 AM on October 13:

To Geo: I too have noticed how in the 60s and 70s we were told how essential it was to lower our birth rates to save the environment, but since the early 80s the same leftists have been telling us that because of our low birth rates we must be inundated with mass immigration to save our economies and prop up our entitlement programs. (It is never explained how social security will be saved by minimum wage workers who expect to collect social security themselves when they retire.)


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search