Monday, 19 December 2016

From the Best and Brightest Files: Immigrants are Making Us Dumber.

According to this analysis based on PISA scores immigrants are decreasing the national IQs of the West.  To put it crassly they're making us dumb.

There's probably a flaw in the methodology but living in Toronto for as long as I have I'm inclined to think it's correct for the most part.  If our immigration system is designed to filter for the "best and brightest" it's apparent it's not doing it's job.  Or the more reasonable explanation is that Canada doesn't attract the world's "best and brightest" at all and has to settle for what washes up on our shores which tend to be the third-world's C and D students. When you're the safety school country to America's Harvard or the U.K.'s Oxford you're forced to settle for what comes your way.

And if the mostly third-world immigrants Canada attracts are indeed the developing world's "best and brightest" then it explains why the the third-world is in such a sorry state.

Come to think of it allowing immigrants from the third-world to settle in the West is a lose/lose situation.  For one, these mostly unremarkable people add no value to the Western countries they settle in since the West already has high standards of achievement to which their contributions would be negligible at best.  And secondly, by being the "best and brightest" of their country and removing themselves from it makes their native countries dumber and worse off.  Everyone loses in this scenario except the immigrant.

It's clear to me Canada and the developing world are better off if Canada doesn't accept immigrants from the third-world at all.

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Racial Diversity is Bullshit!

I did a Google search for “racial diversity is bullshit” and I didn’t find anything.  I found “diversity sucks” but I didn’t find “racial diversity is bullshit” so I’m writing this blog post to fill that void.  Why?  Because of “hate” G-d-dammit and there’s not enough of it on the internet!  And because I’m an ass like that, that’s why!  And because racial diversity really is bullshit!

So where do I get off saying that?

Well, I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  It’s Canada’s largest city and presently the fourth largest city in North America.  It’s a clean, relatively crime free city given its size but aside from that it doesn’t have much else going for it.  This is why it has to brag about being the most diverse, cosmopolitan city in the world as if that’s an accomplishment worth bragging about.  When you’re the largest city in what is essentially a safety school country for immigrants wanting to settle in the West attracting a numerous and diverse group of people from mostly underdeveloped, shit-tier countries is about as easy as getting Justin Trudeau to stop and pose for the camera.  That’s like the brightest patio light bragging about how bright it is because it attracts the most numerous and most diverse group of insects.  (Sure you’re the brightest patio light but you got all these damn bugs around you diminishing your brilliance.)  So it should come as no surprise to learn that Toronto, with over 200 years of white settlement behind it, has become a white minority city within a single generation.  With having over 50% of its population being non-white and I myself having lived in Toronto for as long as I have I think that makes me well qualified to say racial diversity is bullshit.

Think about it.  What’s so great about racial diversity besides satisfying some sort of xenophilic fetish or to virtue signal to the world how your country is not racist and by implication neither are you?  It’s not as if the amount of melanin or lack thereof in one’s skin endows an individual with some set of special skills, talents, or knowledge unavailable to anyone else even through education, experimentation, and hard work.

So how bullshit is racial diversity?  Well, when Canada was a lot less racially diverse than it is today the country was at the forefront of modern aerospace technology.  When the U.S. was a lot less racially diverse than it is today it was laying the foundations of the internet while putting a man on the moon using technology that was developed by a country that was trying to be as racially pure as possible.  When Britain was a lot less racially diverse than it is today it colonized half the globe, mothered four prosperous industrialized nations, created and gifted the world half of its most popular sports, produced an impressive number of Nobel laureates and created the man credited for seeding computer science.  From the looks of things it appears the white western world was getting along fine in the absence of racial diversity leading the world into an exciting technological future.  But if you succumb to the “diversity is our strength” mindset you’d probably be inclined to believe that if the white West was as racially diverse then as it is today we’d probably have developed a hyper-drive by now and be colonizing other planets in the galaxy.  Because of non-white skin colour magic you see, which somehow makes the white West grow and prosper while doing “dick all” for non-white countries.

Not good enough?  How about the observation that non-whites in white majority countries think racial diversity is bullshit too?  Since actions speak louder than words settlement patterns in our major cities infer this.  Non-whites will vocally express the wonderful benefits racial diversity brings to white majority societies (benefits only white majority countries are in need of apparently and not non-white ones) and then retreat to one of their ethnic enclaves revealing a preference to live among their own.  It appears they have little interest in racial diversity in their ethnic ghettos but think it’s a great thing for the wider white society.  Why this is so, I think, is because most non-whites immigrate to the West for economic reasons and not to participate in some grand multicultural program to “enrich” western nations.  Therefore an expression by whites to maintain the white majority composition of their respective countries would frustrate those ambitions.  So it’s best to tell them that non-whites in their midst is a good thing and they should accept it even to the point where they become an insignificant demographic minority in their own countries.  It’s the racial colonization of white societies and they’re completely fine with that because colonization is wonderful as long as you’re the one doing it.

Even the progressive left thinks racial diversity is bullshit.  Given the left’s propensity for cognitive dissonance they preach the joys of racial diversity out of one side of their mouth while celebrating miscegenation out of the other where in the case of the latter were it allowed to run its full course it would extinguish racial diversity altogether.  Since race-mixing it the ultimate expression for the left that we live in a post-racial world the elimination of racial diversity through miscegenation is the logical endgame. This is because they know, if not consciously then subconsciously, that racial diversity is bullshit since all it does is create problems, problems they acknowledge but won’t admit to.  And if they do admit to racial diversity’s problems it’s always whitey’s fault who, for some, needs to be bred out of existence.  I guess getting rid of whitey, in fact any kind of racial diversity, is the only way a leftist's imaginings of a post-racial Utopia can be realized. 

So what has racial diversity wrought?  No benefits outside the superficial while creating problems where none existed before through the creation of social tensions and unnecessary, wasteful distractions in the economic and political realms.  This can be seen in the now very commonplace complaint that there’s too many of X in position Y suggesting that it’s a problem where the placement of Z in position Y is the solution.  However, the problem isn’t that there’s too many of X in position Y it’s that there’s too many of Z making it into a problem.  Remove Z from the equation and there’s no problem.  Or just don’t introduce Z into the equation at all.

But that’s what we’ve done.  We’ve introduced Z and created a problem where none existed before (and as if we don’t have enough problems already).  Government being “too white” wasn’t a problem until we allowed too many non-whites to settle in the country and make into a problem.  The lack of racial diversity in the workforce wasn’t a problem until we allowed non-whites to settle in our society in large numbers and make it into a problem.  Now we waste valuable resources on enforcing racial diversity policies condemning us to settle for second place at best since racial diversity doesn’t guarantee quality and competency.  If racial diversity created the best outcome it can be best explained as a happy accident.

Racial diversity distracts us from addressing the real roots of social inequality which is found in our class based society.  It’s not white privilege you morons, it’s class privilege and many benefit from our class based society and have no wish to change it.  This is especially true for the 1%.  Parachuting some POC into some position of influence and promoting them beyond their competency gives the illusion of social progress while maintaining the class power structure.  Meanwhile the lower classes fight among themselves over the scraps of food the upper class lets fall to the floor from their dinner table where non-whites promote preferences for their particular skin type to give them an advantage.  It’s the old “divide and conquer” strategy to keep the unruly rabble from realizing they have the power and rebelling.  Without the distractions and diluting effects of racial diversity solidarity of the lower classes would be easier to obtain.

What’s most bothersome about racial diversity is that it implies that a racially homogeneous host society is inherently deficient due to its racially homogeneous character and only the introduction of those racially unlike those of the host majority can make that society whole and function at its greatest potential.  It’s suggesting that white majority societies are lacking some kind of vital nutrient needed for growth and survival that only non-whites can deliver.  This is insulting!  It’s saying that a child who grew up in a small white majority community in the boonies had a lesser childhood than one who grew up in a racially diverse “vibrant” community of the big city.  Bullshit!

What’s patronizing is how the “enrichment” non-whites bring to white majority societies is understood to be not reciprocal.  Like the “magic negro” of film non-whites exist in white societies to help whites grow into a more enlightened, civilized people while non-whites are not expected to change at all.  Non-whites are perfect in their natural state and in no need of the “enrichment” they bring to whites or to each other.  Since whites are lacking how are they to benefit from non-whites if non-whites are lacking as well?  It is therefore understood that whites are enriched by non-whites but non-whites are not enriched by whites because they don’t need to be and how can they be if whites are deficient and they’re not?  It’s patronizing for whites, in a state of smug self-awareness, to humbly admit they’re flawed and need to be perfected through the magical qualities they ascribe to non-white skin.  It’s racist and it’s all bullshit!

It’s now 2016, soon to be 2017 (and always “current year”) and the white West is as racially diverse as it’s ever been and what does it have to show for it?  When it was mostly racially homogeneous it was exploring the solar system, breaking the sound barrier, developing the internet, creating modern telecommunications; challenging itself through philosophy, art, and sport; setting global standards in pop culture and fashion.   Today we have safe spaces, trigger warnings, cultural appropriation, anti-white racism masked as social justice, economies more dependent on financial trickery than on the production of real wealth, and where the greatest technological advances we made of late can be summed up in an inane, overvalued, internet data-mining, productivity killing company called Facebook.  It appears the more racially diverse the West has become the more mediocre it’s become but mediocrity is a predictable outcome when diversity is an aspirant quality, especially racial diversity which, in my lived experience, is bullshit.

Monday, 7 November 2016

Logical Fallacies of Mass Immigration Supporters: The False Equivalence.

The False Equivalence.

The false equivalence fallacy takes two opposing arguments and presents them to be the same.  

In immigration debates the false equivalence presumes that because an earlier immigrant cohort successfully integrated into Canadian society future ones will as well.  It’s assuming that because Irish Catholics who came to Canada in the early twentieth century and integrated reasonably well then so will Middle Eastern Muslims who come to Canada in the early twenty first.  

But past success of one group of immigrants is no indication of repeated success for future ones especially for ones that are a completely different group of people altogether.  Despite the negative reception Irish Catholic immigrants may have experienced when settling in early twentieth century North America they still held much in common with the receiving culture providing a pathway for acceptance by the host society and greater ease of integration whereas Arab Muslim have even less in common with the host society if any at all.  

And given the current state of technology one could effectively live in another country while maintaining strong ties with the native one.  The Chinese have been in North America for well over a century yet the Chinatowns across the continent haven’t disappeared.  They’ve grown in number.  Toronto alone has at least three now, four, maybe more if you include the GTA yet you’d be hard pressed to find an Irishtown anywhere in the city.  

And given how we’ve abandoned any sense of a common identity in favour of a vague, multicultural one integration is now subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

Monday, 24 October 2016

The Liberals Won Because Canadians Grew Bored With The Conservatives.


Winston Churchill famously said the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter and his observation is no less true of Canadian voters today than it was of British voters back then.  How else can you explain the enduring popularity of Justin Trudeau without concluding the average Canadian voter is too politically ignorant to vote and should be forced to pass a test before they are allowed to exercise their franchise.  But listening to the pundits you’d be led to believe Canadian voters are a well informed and politically engaged electorate but they’re giving them too much credit.  They need to hype up Canadians’ political intellect because they need to be convinced Canadians believe the same things they do to justify their mistaken perception of themselves as the voice of the people.  They want to believe Canadians turned on the Conservatives because they opposed the Niqab ban (they didn’t) and they rallied around the Liberals Syrian refugee resettlement scheme because it was the Canadian thing to do (not true either).  The real reason why Canadians turned on the Conservatives is because they grew bored of them and wanted something new.

A review of the history of the popular vote in past elections reveals how unremarkable the Liberal victory was.  With just 39.5% of the popular vote it seems pathetic compared to the Progressive Conservatives 50.03% of the popular vote back in 1984 and 43.02% of the popular vote in 1988.  And this was when the deservedly hated Brian Mulroney was party leader.  Indeed, the Liberal’s 39.5% support is slightly poorer compared to the 39.6% Stephen Harper’s Conservatives got in the previous election when the party secured a majority.  And despite the constant muck thrown at Stephen Harper and his Conservatives by our allegedly objective press in the run up to the election they still walked away with 31.9% of the popular vote.  They were defeated but hardly crushed.

Reading the press you’d think the Liberals destroyed their opposition but they didn’t.  Such is the nature of our first-past-the-post system.  You can win a riding and form the government with the majority of voters voting against you.  It’s not a perfect system but a truly perfect democratic system doesn’t exist.  That didn’t stop the Liberals from trying to give us one even though their effort was a masked attempt to gerrymander the next election and all elections after that.

So why did the Liberals win?  Part of it has to do with the stupefying popularity of their vacuous party leader most of it fabricated by a media shamelessly acting as Trudeau’s press agents and not the adversarial fourth estate they pretend to be.  That an obvious nitwit like Justin Trudeau can ascend to the highest office of an advanced industrialized nation speaks not only of the power of pedigree but says a lot about the influence of media bias on the people of the nation that put him there.  These are the same people who detest Stephen Harper but can’t exactly tell you why.

Equally so they can’t tell you why they voted for the Liberals, or NDP for that matter, without condemning the Conservatives because they didn’t know where the Liberals stood on anything because the Liberals didn’t tell you where they stood on anything beyond climate change, diversity, and gender equality, the holy trinity of fashionable social justice causes guaranteed to get you good press.  Oh and legalized pot.  And middle class tax cuts that really aren’t.  It was just a carryover from Trudeau’s bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada where he was just as vague and noncommittal about everything outside of climate change, diversity, and gender equality.  Oh, and pot.  You can’t forget about the pot.

Ennui and not anger is why the Conservatives lost.  The Conservatives had become familiar and boring breeding irrational contempt in a populace whose personal lives had become equally familiar and boring compounded by increasing insecurity and a sense of powerlessness to do anything about it.  Elections are great in that they not only fool people into thinking that they can change their lives, that they can overcome that sense of powerlessness, through the mere act of voting but a change of government provides the fleeting novelty their indebted, precarious, stagnant lives are looking for.

The “hopey, changey” fluff of the Obama campaign is exemplary in this regard.  Not only did Obama provide the illusion of giving power to the powerless he provided the novelty of voting for America’s first black President.  But “hope” and “change” was just “marketing pabulum” to avoid discussing important issues.  And given Justin Trudeau’s knack for sounding stupid when he thinks he’s talking smart the borrowing of pages from the Democrats’ campaign playbook was a sensible move, choosing to concentrate on image more so than merit for in Justin’s case, as so for Obama, there is plenty of the former, not much of the latter.

The Liberals will win the next election.  I don’t see how they can lose but a third term is pushing it. I’m hoping by then Canadian’s would have grown tired of Justin Trudeau’s “Look at me!” antics and yearn for a real statesman, not some jet-setting wannabe world celebrity with a messiah complex who cashed in on his politically famous last name and sought the highest office in this country because he lacked both the talent and the intellect to achieve international fame any other way.  I doubt very much the Liberals will do anything in power to effect positive change in the lives of Canadians (governments rarely do) but as long as they can be duped by the “hope” and “change” superficiality that is Trudeau the Lesser the longer he will remain “popular” and the Liberals in power


Sunday, 9 October 2016

Logical Fallacies of Mass Immigration Supporters: The Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition.

Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition.

Appeal to antiquity/tradition is the position that because something worked for us in the past we should continue to do it seemingly in perpetuity.  This is problematic because it ignores the modern context.  Just because something worked in the past doesn’t mean it’s still beneficial today.

In immigration discussions this fallacy manifests itself as the “Canada was built by immigration” meme.   While it may be historically factual that Canada was built by immigration it’s not an argument for continued and ever increasing immigration in the present.  This is because “current year” Canada is a different place than the Canada of one hundred years ago.  We have to take into consideration the health of the economy, immigration’s impact on the environment, its effects on social cohesion, technology and its potential impact on the labour market, among other things.

To illustrate the absurdity of this argument we can perform a thought experiment where we imagine a Canada were every space of land is occupied by an individual so that you couldn’t take a single step in either direction without stepping on someone’s toes.  It would be insane to continue to allow immigration in this scenario just because tradition demands it.  If the country hadn’t become an undesirable place to live long before it got to that point it definitely will become an undesirable place to live when it does.  The country’s economy, society, and institutions would have collapsed under such weight.   I acknowledge this is an absurd example because it’s highly unlikely the country will ever reach that point but it does bring to light that population sizes do have their limits and immigration cannot be spoken of independent of a myriad of other considerations solely because it worked so well for us in the past.  Canadians cities consistently rank in the top tier of best places to live in the world mostly because they are medium sized cities however unrestrained immigration will undo that.  These once livable cities will become unlivable, a process already in the making for Toronto.

If we were to remain true to the "Canada was built by immigration" meme then we would be favouring European immigration almost exclusively because it wasn’t just immigrants who built Canada.  It was European Christian immigrants who did.

Monday, 3 October 2016

Majority of Canadians Reject Multiculturalism? But it’s Current Year!

As if we need more evidence to drive the point home that Canadians reject multiculturalism the CBC reports on a CBC-Angus Reid poll that found 68% of Canadians want minorities to “fit in” by which we mean we want more assimilation and less accommodation.  Also, the underlying subtext is we want immigrants who look more like us so we’re not overwhelmed demographically.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.  It’s completely understandable.  Some will say “that’s racist” to which I say f*ck that!  I’m really getting tired of hearing that shit because shouting racism isn’t an argument.

This poll suggests, to me at least, that Canadians don’t see their country as a multicultural one and don’t want it to be one either.  Those who state otherwise harbour the real marginal opinion.

And if a referendum were held today asking Canadians if they wish to see their country adopt multiculturalism as the driving social policy guiding the national character they’d oppose it outright with a clear majority to erase any confusion.

This is why it had to be imposed upon us by our self appointed betters in government and their enablers in the media.

It cannot be stressed enough that multiculturalism, along with the restructuring of our immigration system to favour immigration from non-traditional sources, was conceived out of elite arrogance and not popular will.

Multiculturalism and mass immigration is cultural and demographic suicide for a host society.  I think Canadians have come to understand this if they hadn’t arrived at that realization already so it shouldn’t be so shocking to learn that, according to this CBC-Angus Reid poll, the majority of Canadians have their objections.  They know there was nothing wrong with the old Canada and, quite frankly, would like to have it back.  The new Canada to them is just so new Coke.

Friday, 23 September 2016

Polls Show John McCallum's Full of Shit.

Here's a Globe and Mail article that doesn't require much commentary.  It pretty much speaks for itself.

It basically tells us John McCallum is full of shit based on his own government's internal polling.  By this I mean Canadians don't want more immigrants despite pronouncements from McCallum to the contrary.  And his government knows this.  This follows a Nanos poll conducted on behalf of the Globe which saw 16% of Canadians favouring an increase of immigrants with more than twice as many, some 39%, wanting a decrease with 37% thinking the numbers should remain the same.  Put another way 76% of Canadians polled don't want an increase in the numbers of immigrants.

Canadians don't want more immigrants and we haven't wanted more immigrants for a long time. Here's an EKOS poll conducted in March of 2015 and published in the Winnipeg Free Press that found 46% of respondents felt there are too many immigrants coming to the country with 41% saying too many of them are non-white.

Here's another poll.  And another.  And yet another.

Despite poll after poll telling the government time after time, be it Liberal or Conservative, that we don't want more immigrants, in fact we want less, they go ahead and give us more immigrants and John McCallum is going to do the same.  He's already hinted at it.  Since he's already made up his mind his national consultations were just a PR stunt.

They tell us we need immigrants because of labour shortages and an ageing population but those go-to excuses have been debunked.

Were they to be truthful with us it's too keep, I believe, Canada's housing market from imploding because we're in too deep now and no one has a solution on how to deal with it and no one in Ottawa wants to confront it because no one in Ottawa would know how to handle a crash.  It's amateur hour on Parliament Hill for the next four years at least.  So it's best to keep pushing it off into the indefinite future with fingers crossed and hope it solves itself for without the housing market Canada's economy doesn't have much going for it at the moment and it's a market driven by debt and cheap money.  If cheap money is how immigrants are paying for their shitty urban sprawl houses on incomes from shitty paying jobs many of them get then we're making the situation worse by making the bubble bigger.  Because if interest rates were to rise how many people will still be able to afford the house they bought when interest rates were low.  If you're a gambling man you might want short Canada's banks.

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

If You're A Syrian Refugee In Canada You Can Thank Justin Trudeau's Narcissism.

I haven’t read the Toronto Star ever since comments were disabled at their website.  Being denied the opportunity to challenge their editorial slant in both commentary and selective news reporting I saw little reason to venture to the paper’s online source and give them my page-view.  It was a stupid business decision if you ask me – to disable commenting that is – because page-views are a website’s bread and butter and what better way is there to increase page-views than to attract those who typically ignore your paper by allowing them the opportunity to give you a piece of their mind in the comments?  TorStar deserves to go bankrupt and it can’t happen fast enough.

That being said, it’s hard to not notice a headline or two in one of the many Toronto Star boxes that litter the streets of the city and a recent headline bleated “31,000 Syrians Welcomed.”  When I read that I thought, “Welcomed by whom?” only to quickly realize they mean us Canadians.

It always bugs me every time the word “welcome” is used to describe the latest batch of “new Canadians” as if to imply they are wanted here in the first place.  I, for one, don’t welcome them here at all.  They’re not needed, they bestow no tangible benefits to us a country or people, they clog up our roads, create more problems than they’re supposed to solve, they drive down wages while contributing to the general scarcity of good paying jobs, and generally are oxygen consuming slabs of meat that just get in the way of where you’re going.  Immigrants are overrated and if it’s meant they’re “welcomed” like a spring thaw after a long, cold, dark winter then no.  It’s more like “welcomed” like a case of Chlamydia.

“31,000 Syrians Dumped on Canadians” would be a more accurate headline.  Or, “31,000 Syrians Imposed on Canadians” would be another.  Perhaps, “31,000 Fashionable Charity Cases of the Virtue-Signaling Class Arrive in Canada, Taxpayers Expected to Now Take Care of Them” would be the most honest if too long.  But “Welcome”?  Please!  Speak for yourself.

Below the picture accompanying the print edition of the front-page story ran the text “Trudeau applauded at UN for Syrian Intake” and that says it all now doesn’t it?  That’s what this is all about it now isn’t it?  Here we have a man of no accomplishment despite his having great privilege and the advantages that come with it, whose only contribution to the whole affair is shooting his mouth of during an election campaign, taking credit for the efforts of others and being applauded for it.  It was an event where a man of little accomplishment was applauded by many for doing practically nothing.  31,000 Syrians arrived in Canada, with more to come, on Justin’s insatiable need for narcissistic supply to feed his inveterate narcissism.  It was a cheap and easy PR stunt to impress the right people and Justin knew others would do the work for him and he’d get all the accolades.
  
Let’s abandon pretension and stop kidding ourselves.  Canada didn’t rush to aid in the Syrian crisis out of altruism.  It did so because of the vanity of our political class.  I’m not opposed to assisting refugees but I object to the way we do it.  I don’t agree with uprooting them from their countries and regions and airlifting them to resettle here permanently which doesn’t make them refugees anymore but immigrants.  But if we didn’t do that then there wouldn’t be any opportunities for airport photo-ops and pats on the back from the UN would be shortcoming.  Well, I’m not getting a pat on the back for having refugees dumped into my community and then being expected to support and accommodate them but then again my last name isn’t Trudeau.  But then again maybe I am getting pat on the back only Prime Minister Potato Head is receiving it on my behalf in New York City.  So, you’re welcome I guess???

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

John McCallum’s National Public Consultation on Immigration Is a Cross Country Sales Pitch and not a National Public Consultation.

John McCallum’s national consultation on immigration is a sales pitch and not a consultation.  I’m convinced the targets are already set and he’s travelling across the country as a public relations stunt.
 
He wants to fool Canadians into believing they have a say in establishing immigration policy even though it’s apparent John McCallum is primarily consulting with those who he knows will tell him what he wants to hear: the members of the immigration industry and the business lobby.  It’s like the Minister of Public Safety consulting exclusively with NAMBLA over changes to age of consent laws.  They, along with the immigrants themselves, are prime beneficiaries of mass immigration and seem to be the only people John McCallum cares to listen to even though the rest of us are equal, nay greater stakeholders than they are since we’re the ones mostly affected by the impact of mass immigration not just financially but also socially, culturally, environmentally, and demographically.

The bullshit coming out of this guy’s mouth is the same crap shoveled by previous Ministers irrespective of party affiliation.

Take what John McCallum said in Alberta I assume with a straight face.  He tells us Alberta needs more immigrants because his consultations have told him that that’s what the laid off oil worker wants.  To justify importing more immigrants than current levels he said, “I think people tend to take a longer term point of view and there remain labour shortages in some sectors and they want to be in good shape for when the recovery begins.”  He said this in a province currently shedding jobs yet vaguely tells us “labour shortages” remain in “some sectors” whatever those sectors may be and we need immigrants to prepare us for when the recovery begins.  So we need to stockpile labour for that "any day now" recovery is what he is saying.  This is pretty much the same nonsense Jason Kenney said when he doubled down on the immigrants when Canada was experiencing an economic downturn in 2008 and hasn’t fully recovered from.  You’d figure job losses, an economic downturn, and an overall shitty job market would suggest a cautionary approach to immigration but nope!  In Canada now we need immigrants to support an economic boom and we need even more immigrants in an economic bust to prepare for the recovery.  One has to wonder what it takes to decrease immigration targets when negative economic indicators don’t matter anymore?

It should raise eyebrows every time a Minister of Immigration has these consultations and the result is always the same: we need more immigrants.  Whoever they’re consulting with it’s definitely not us.  I think they know what the majority thinks about immigration and don’t want to confront it.  Instead they prefer to lie to our faces and tell us we want more immigrants hoping this will be enough to convince us that the majority actually does want more immigration and the only person who has a problem with it is you, the sole mass immigration skeptic in the country. 

I’m predicting, hoping to be proven wrong in a not-as-bad-as-I-expected kind of way, the Liberals will set immigration targets for 2017 at the arbitrary 1% of the population number.  That means 350,000 people will be given their membership cards to club Canada.  This will be an increase of over 80,000 more people from the current level of around 270,000.  I also expect them to provide a pathway for TFWs to become permanent residents meaning TFWs aren’t really TFWs at all but, like refugees, immigrants by another stream.  Speaking of refugees expect more of them.  Perhaps even asylum for all the illegals.

Do we need all these people?  No, but we’re going to get them anyway because immigrants need housing and right now without the housing market Canada’s economy doesn’t have much going for it.  And if housing is the main thing driving your nation’s GDP numbers immigrants are just a band aid solution to a deeper problem because if the jobs aren’t there how are they expected to afford the mortgages on their cheaply built urban sprawl shit-boxesHow low can interest rates go and stay there for how long?

Monday, 29 August 2016

Logical Fallacies of Mass Immigration Supporters: The Appeal to Emotion.

The Appeal to Emotion.

If you’re opponent isn’t calling you the next Hitler then they’re most likely asking you to think of the Syrian refugee children.  As common as is the ad hominem is the appeal to emotion fallacy.  They are arguments that seek validation by making us feel a certain way but just because an argument makes us feel a certain way doesn’t make it an argument because feelings aren’t arguments.

One way is to appeal to our sense of compassion.  This was most evident in the case of Alan Kurdi.  Photos of his lifeless body lying on a Mediterranean shore became an argument for Canada opening its borders to Syrian refugee resettlement.  Dismissing the fact that little Alan’s death had more to do with paternal negligence than it had with the Syrian refugee crisis his death is not an argument to bring in 50,000 Syrian refugees.  Allowing 50,000 Syrians to effectively immigrate to Canada won’t accomplish much aside from allowing Canada’s virtue signaling class to parade like moral peacocks on social media and make them feel good about themselves.  Syria is still a destabilized country that, according to the UN, has produced an estimated 6.6 million internally displaced persons and has sent over 4.8 million to seek refuge abroad primarily in camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Removing 50,000 of them won’t make much of a difference.  The money and resources being spent to resettle a select 50,000 people would have gone further and benefited more had it been utilized in the camps.  This would allow the refugees to stay in the region and hopefully return to rebuild their country and lives at a future date.  Indeed, what are we really accomplishing if what we are doing is removing the very skilled people Syria is going to need to rebuild itself?  It seems we’re doing more harm than good when you look at it that way but then again poaching the developing the world of its skilled talent is what Canada does best.  While Canada is committed to helping the refugees of the world resettling them in Canada is not necessarily the best option since doing so introduces a new set problems such as integration challenges, job skills training, language training, stresses they place on the communities they settle in, and so on. 

Another way our emotions are tickled is to flatter us by saying how a wonderful, tolerant, accepting people we are and variations on that theme.  While it’s nice to be called those things they're completely irrelevant.  It shouldn’t distract us from the fact that there are problems with the immigration system and that there are legitimate concerns of the host society that need addressing.  Ignoring those will make us wonderful, tolerant, and accepting to a fault.


In essence arguments advanced whose only purpose is to make us feel pitiful or prideful or angry are arguments seeking to appeal to our emotional and therefore irrational self which is where they draw their strength from.  They aren't arguments because, as I wrote earlier, feelings aren't arguments.

Saturday, 20 August 2016

Logical Fallacies of Mass Immigration Supporters: The Ad Hominem.

When the current Minister of Immigration, John McCallum, announced Canada was opening its border even wider to immigrants while the rest of the world seemed to be closing theirs part of his reasoning was that Canada was continuing a tradition of immigration based on compassion.  In doing so he committed two logical fallacies in one sentence.  Logical fallacies are commonly employed by the pro-mass immigration crowd so I figure I might as well tackle the ones I’ve encountered over the years.

My feelings on logical fallacies are mixed because in debates about any topic the one who incessantly points out logical fallacies tends to be some pedantic twerp who cares more about pointing out the fallacies than actually discussing the issue.  I think they believe doing so makes them look smart.  It gets annoying, inviting your fist to their mouth as the only satisfactory retort to their nitpicking.  However, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong and they do have a point.

Furthermore, I intended this to be a single post but in writing it I found it becoming quite lengthy so I decided to break it up into a series of posts addressing one fallacy at a time.  I’ve found that there is nothing more off putting to the short attention span, tl;dr, internet age that we live in than a lengthy blog post, a crime I've committed many times before and appear to be in the act of committing right now.  So let’s get started.

The Ad Hominem

Let’s get this one out of the way first because it’s one of the most common logical fallacies readily employed by mass immigration proponents too intellectually lazy or too intellectually ill equipped (by which I mean stupid) or just too cowardly to discuss the issue as mature adults.
 
The ad hominem fallacy is the name calling debate tactic.  Its purpose is to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.  Hopefully it will derail or shut down the debate by forcing the messenger to defend his or her character to the satisfaction of the arbitrary criteria of the name caller instead of arguing their position.

When it comes to discussing immigration ad hominem attacks encompass accusations of being a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, bigot, redneck, right-wing extremist, nationalist, white nationalist, white supremacist, and so on.  The fallacy of the ad hominem is that it seeks to conflate the merits of what is being said with who is saying it even though one is not dependent upon the other.  The Big Bang Theory is not invalidated by the fact a devout Catholic Priest was the one who first proposed it giving way to early criticisms of it of being "creationism in disguise.” Likewise, valid criticisms of the immigration system are not invalidated if presented by the most unrepentant racist ever to walk the planet. 

If you find yourself in a debate and your opponent can do nothing but hurl ad hominem mud then consider yourself the victor.  It’s also best not to further engage this person because you’ll just be wasting your time.  Just give them a lollipop and a colouring book and direct them to their safe space where their fragile world view cannot be challenged, where they’re always right, and where everyone gets to ride the rides for free except for you, of course, because you’re a f**king racist.

Sunday, 17 July 2016

Canadian Job Market Has Not Recovered From 2008 Recession.

So says the OECD but what do they know?  It's sunny ways here in Canada or haven't they heard? Our out-to-lunch (and seemingly always out of the country) PM says so.

Besides, we're importing even more immigrants this year and the years to come.  True, they're mostly the C and D students of the developing world along with illiterate-in-their-own-language refugees and the useless "sponsored" relatives of immigrants.  But unlike the previous waves of immigrants who have failed to provide any real economic benefits to the country these ones are different and will create the jobs that will put us back on track because of neoclassical economics and reasons, I guess.

Monday, 11 July 2016

Immigrants Now Shun Ontario.

Looks like immigrants don't build economies after all.

Who'd of thunk?

Were that assumption true Ontario wouldn't be in the mess it's in.  For decades Ontario has been receiving the lion’s share of immigrants.  Based on the assumptions of immigration proponents Ontario’s economy should be booming thanks to all the jobs immigrants have created and economic activity they generate but it turns out that's not the case.  Today Ontario carries a considerable debt burden and is now a “have not” province when at one time it was the economic engine of the country sending more tax dollars to Ottawa than it received.  Decades of mass immigration to the province has failed to stave off Ontario’s economic decline and now even immigrants are avoiding it to go be a burden somewhere else in the country I imagine.

Using immigration to propel population growth only makes sense when it was essential to build a strong domestic market for domestically made goods, i.e. create a support base for a manufacturing sector and the relatively high paying jobs it provides.  But in today's globalized world a strong domestic market is not necessary for a Canadian company to compete internationally.  All we're doing now is growing a population that buys goods made elsewhere.  They do increase demand for services but is a service based economy better off than one that has a strong manufacturing sector?

Immigrants shunning Ontario should be seen as a canary in the coal mine to politicians and economists but it won't.  We have to ask ourselves where the hell in Canada are they going to go? Are they going to B.C. to sell real-estate to unscrupulous, parasitic Chinese multimillionaires with more money than scruples?  Are they going to dig up dirty oil or herd cattle in Alberta?  Are they going to go dig up potash in Saskatchewan or go fishing in Newfoundland?  Because all they seem to be doing here in Ontario is provide demand for the housing market doing whatever the hell it is they do to make their monthly mortgage payments which I'm positive the powers that be know they won't be able to afford once interest rates increase.

Friday, 24 June 2016

Well That’s Gratitude For Ya.

If you find yourself complaining about the hospitality of the country that granted you shelter from whatever real or made-up-for-immigration-purposes threat you happen to be fleeing from then perhaps you’re not a refugee at all.
 
Seriously, if you’re complaining about the food or the accommodations you’re gracious hosts provided you then, yeah, you’re not a refugee.

It’s bad enough close to $1 billion of our tax dollars has been allocated to relocate you to our shores the least you could do is not complain about it.  Canadians are weary enough of refugees already so it’s best not to give us more reasons to be even wearier of refugees as if we need more reasons.

And since I’m talking about it here are more signs you might not be a refugee.





You frequently return to the country of your alleged persecution even as your asylum application is being considered.

You bypass or pass through other countries that can provide shelter to get to one where the benefits are better.


You engage in regular criminal activity in the country where you seek sanctuary.



If even one of these describes you then you’re probable not a refugee but that’s not a problem.  We have an entire industry staffed by people whose livelihoods depend on your patronage and will help you fake it ‘til you make it even though they know you’re phonier than the danger you're purportedly fleeing.  When it comes to making a living they don’t care who you are just as long they get paid.

Sunday, 19 June 2016

Say What!? There's Too Many Refugees In Europe? They Threaten To Alter The Unique Character of the Continent? Germany Should Remain German?

What vile, racist, bigoted, xenophobic, uncaring, and apparent white supremacist said such a thing?

Oh.

Reminds me of the time another man of Asian heritage said some sensible things about immigration sending Canada's virtue-signalling class and careerist political hacks into a frenzy.

They both make sense.

Refuge should be temporary and not a path to permanent settlement.  That's why they're called refugees and not immigrants.  You don't turn the gazebo in a public park into your permanent home just because you sought refuge there from a passing rainstorm.  Allowing refugees to become citizens makes them immigrants which is what we have done here in Canada.  It's why oh so many alleged refugees seek to scam our lax refugee system and why critics label these people as "self selecting immigrants" and not refugees.  They didn't come to Canada to find refuge.  Oftentimes that can be found in their native countries and if not there then in neighbouring states.  No, they've come to Canada because they want to immigrate and then import their families.

Furthermore, not only has the massive influx of migrants into Europe destabilized the EU - a wake up call to open borders proponents and theirs calls for unfettered, unrestricted immigration - it threatens the unique character of Europe and it's member states.  Germany should remain German and not become another Arab majority country.  Allowing this to happen makes the world less diverse and less multicultural and aren't diversity and multiculturalism values we're supposed to be fostering?

Also, the carrying capacity of every country is finite.  Though Canada's landmass is large much of the country is inhospitable to massive human settlement forcing population growth in select pockets of the country which, unfortunately, happen to reside on the nation's richest farming land.  These areas will become overpopulated with the attendant sub-par living standards.  If landmass is all that matters then good news!  There's swaths of cheap land located in north Africa you might be interested in buying.

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

Dear Conservative Party of Canada: Immigrants Don't Vote For You.

I came across this blog post about Canada's erstwhile Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney and learned an interesting fact about the CPC's alleged gains among immigrant voters in the federal election of 2011 where the party secured its majority.

It turns out the seats they won in the nation's urban areas - particularly Toronto which has a high immigrant and non-white electorate - were won not on newly acquired votes from immigrants but on vote splitting between Canada's two left of center parties, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party.  It appears "new Canadians" who supported the LPC in previous elections just shifted their vote to the NDP in 2011.  This allowed the CPC to win those seats where the shift was significant enough to allow them to waltz right up the middle of a split vote.

Looks like immigrants aren't the friends of the CPC after all despite all the efforts made to buy their support with reckless promises of faster, laxer, and more open immigration.  Why should they support the CPC at all when the LPC and the NDP are promising immigrants the same gifts and more if need be?

This is a problem the Conservatives have to acknowledge and it's one they partially brought upon themselves. While the Pierre Trudeau Liberals are often blamed for cynically manipulating the immigration system for party advantage it was Brain Mulroney and the then Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that let the system really get out of control.  Also, when the CPC was in power they imported record numbers of immigrants even in a time of economic downturn thinking they could beat the Liberals at their own game when all they really accomplished was inflate the support base of their political rivals by importing future LPC and NDP voters.  Way to go morons!

The Conservatives need to start acting like conservatives which means adopting a conservative approach to immigration because pandering to the immigrant/ethnic vote bloc doesn't and didn't work.  If they did they would nicely align themselves with the wishes of most Canadians.  Besides, there is something very undemocratic and unnerving that a minority, foreign born portion of the population has so much influence over a policy that can vastly alter the future demographic makeup of the country.  We need a party that listens to the majority, not another one that ignores them to pander to the minority.

Monday, 9 May 2016

Multiculturalism: A Government Policy That Creates Social Problems Where None Before Existed (Only For The Government To Offer Itself as the Solution to The Social Problems It Created).

I’ve come across many attempts to define what multiculturalism is and most of them are wanting but not for a lack of trying.  They seem vague and unsure of themselves.  I find multiculturalism as a concept so ill-defined that I don’t think anyone really knows how to actually describe it without resorting to platitudes and appealing to the broad ideals of mutual respect and tolerance.  That is until I watched this video in which its creator states that diversity just creates social problems where none existed before and I said “That’s it!”  That’s exactly what multiculturalism is.  It’s a government program that only creates problems where there weren’t problems before.

It’s getting tiresome to read and hear comments stating Canada has always been a multicultural country being ignorant of the fact that multiculturalism as social policy was born out of political convenience for the Liberal Party of Canada in the early 1970s.  Prior to that Canada was very confident and comfortable with itself being a country of the British Commonwealth founded by the English and French languages; by European settlers; and rooted in European thought, culture, and traditions.  Everything was going great until some pompous ass came along and f**ked everything up.

Multiculturalism has not contributed anything of significant worth to Canada or to Canadians.  It exists solely as a political tool to manipulate ethnic voting blocs into delivering their votes to a particular political party come election day which was its initial intent all along.  Outside of that all it has done for us is disrupt social cohesion by fragmenting our cities into ethnic enclaves/colonies.  It produces societal headaches by fostering resentment among ethnic groups who seek political power and influence by competing with each other for government largesse.  Because of multiculturalism governmental affairs are now bogged down with identity politics distracting it from addressing more pertinent concerns which it would be doing were it not allowed to distract itself with multicultural non-issues in the first place.  It lets government appear to govern without actually governing.

Multiculturalism is political rent seeking.  It’s the government creating a problem and then offering itself as the solution to the problem it created.  Millions of tax dollars are wasted to fund the new layers of bureaucracy that multiculturalism needs for its administration.  Millions of tax dollars are doled out each year to curry support from ethnic vote banks to fund their organizations, community centers, and festivals which we don’t go to because, frankly, we don’t give a s**t about their culture.  This money could have been put to better use to serve the real needs of Canadians if multiculturalism didn’t exist.

Multiculturalism is a hollow idea.  It’s a non-identity.  It has done nothing for us as a country and denies Canadians the ability to create a unique character and voice on the world stage.  It robs communities of local culture and nations of its character.  It needs to be thrown into the trash can of bad ideas where it belongs.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Immigrants to Canada Contribute to Climate Change.

I don’t know about you but it seems Justin Trudeau has spent more time outside the country than in it ever since the Liberals won the federal election back in November of 2015 but I think it’s because Justin is so awesome and it's unfair to the whole of the world if Canadians hog that awesomeness all to themselves.  You see, Justin is so awesome that Canada is too vast, her audience too small to contain and bear witness to the awesomeness that is Justin Trudeau.  Justin knows this so almost immediately after the Liberals won the election that terrible day back in November he embarked on his “Justin Trudeau Is So Awesome” world tour because it would be a crime against humanity to deny the people of the world the opportunity to bask in his awesomeness.  He is after all God’s gift to Canada and Canada’s gift to the world.

That’s why I find it bizarre that he was in New York City recently to lecture the UN on climate change and sign yet another symbolic, non-binding agreement to address it when his globetrotting to date has probably farted out more CO2 emissions into the atmosphere than the bottom 20% of the world’s population does in an entire year.  I mean how serious can you take this guy when he brings along an entourage of 383 souls to the Paris climate summit; more than the U.S., the U.K., and Australia combined; when a smaller contingent of people would have sufficed producing a smaller CO2 footprint and reinforce the image of a government concerned about climate change. 

I don’t believe he gives a damn about climate change.  I think he’s using it as a platform to champion with hopes it will net him a nod from Stockholm.  It also feeds his messiah complex.  It’s all about him really.  Everything, be it the election, gender equality, or climate change.  It’s a means to generate narcissistic supply for the narcissistic Prime Minister and mine adoration from a sycophantic press and a fan base of half-wits.

Were he truly concerned about climate change his party wouldn’t be so determined to shovel more people into the country especially from nations with a lower carbon footprint per capita than Canada.  This is because Canadians have one of the largest carbon footprints in the world.  To put this in perspective, while China is the biggest global producer of CO2 emissions it also has the largest population in the world and broken down per capita Canadians are bigger producers of CO2 emissions than the Chinese.  Yet China is a top source of immigrants to Canada as is India and the Philippines.  Immigrants from these countries, and elsewhere, increase their carbon footprint simply by moving to Canada.

A specific way immigrants contribute to climate change is pushing urban sprawl onto the nation’s arable lands making Canada more dependent on food imports and large agribusiness factory farms both of which have larger carbon footprints than a farm growing local produce.  Furthermore, in urban sprawl the car is king and urban sprawl just expands the urban heat island effect.

Canadians’ large carbon footprint may have to do with the fact that Canada is a northern country with long, cold, dark winters and short hot summers.  It’s a vast country with a relatively sparse population.  To stay warm during the winters, cool in the summers, and to generally traverse its great expanse requires the consumption of inordinate amount of resources.  This may help explain why Canada is warming twice the global rate.  Canada isn’t suitable to hosting a large population.

Whether you accept climate change is real or not is up to you.  However Justin Trudeau has made it very clear it’s very real and very important to him.  When the next election rolls around another one million more people would have been imported into the country increasing their carbon footprint and Canada’s as well.  Allowing that, coupled with his international playboy-esque jet setting, if climate change really matters to Justin Trudeau he has a funny way of showing it.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

GDP Is A Misleading Metric.

Proponents of mass immigration often point out how immigration contributes positively to increasing the country’s GDP.  While this may be true it doesn’t provide a complete picture because GDP doesn’t measure the overall standard of living or quality of life of a population.

A nation’s GDP can increase while the quality of life of its citizens can stagnate even decline.  For example an individual can work twelve hour days, seven days a week and that will contribute to the GDP but not provide a very favourable lifestyle.  However if this individual decided to take a day off each week for leisurely pursuits then this wouldn’t be recorded in GDP measurements since leisure isn’t measured but that leisure time would improve that individual's quality of life.  And a life of constant work, especially at a job that brings little fulfillment beyond financial need, with no time for leisure is a life not worth living.

Let’s look at the obvious fact that immigrants take up space.  This means they drive up demand for housing.  They also buy and drive cars.  They also get sick and need to see a doctor.  They also need a job to pay for all of this among other things.  All of this contributes to growing the GDP since their demand for goods and services is a measurable activity when calculating GDP numbers.
 
However, by driving up the demand for housing they also drive up the cost of living since the suppliers of housing can increase prices.  This means more disposable income is going to housing instead of meeting other needs.  They drive cars and clog up our already clogged up highways and city streets causing greater commute times and lost productivity to say nothing of the pollution they create.  When they get sick they fill up our emergency rooms and hospitals giving Canada one of the worst wait times in the industrialized world.  None of this is taken into account in measuring the GDP.  As for incomes immigration has had little if any positive effect on income levels and most likely helps to keep real incomes stagnant which means more money is going to pay for your car you drive to your job to make an income to pay for the increasing cost of living.  As for leisure time f**k that!  Who has time for that when you need to work all the time because you don’t make enough money at your job because mass immigration has saturated the job market?  That is if you can find a job that provides an income you can live on.  There are also the negative effects on one’s mental and physical health due to urban sprawl and densification, the loss of green spaces and arable land, effects on social cohesion, and so forth.

GDP is a dubious metric to begin.  To be honest I'm suspect of Canada's GDP numbers since Canadians have to assume record levels of debt to maintain the illusion of prosperity.  But saying mass immigration contributes to positive GDP growth is a disarming tactic because it implies that a growing GDP begets net benefits for the country and therefore the entirety of Canadian society and who can be against that?  But GDP is used to mask the quality of life diminishing problems mass immigration creates.  Indeed, while it’s arguable that immigration has contributed positively to growing Canada’s GDP it can be equally argued, quite persuasively, that it has negatively affected the quality of life for Canadians especially for us who live in the nation’s largest cities.  And since 30%, if not more, of Canada's GDP is composed of real estate and the service sector I'm cynical enough to believe mass immigration is being used to buoy Canada's otherwise weak economy the way China used rampant property development to inflate it's suspect GDP numbers.

Monday, 11 April 2016

#NotSorryKomagataMaru or Will The Sikh Lobby Apologize For The Murder Of W.C. Hopkinson?

Just asking.

And while you're at it how about Air India Flight 182?

Seriously, didn't we do this five years ago?

Not good enough for you?

Now you want another one?

Holy sh*t!  And you wonder why Canadians view you so disfavourably.

I understand you venerate Inspector Hopkinson's killer, Mewa Singh.  See him as a martyr do ya? But the Muslims are the violent ones.  How about that?

It looks like Prime Minister Nincompoop is going to do what Liberals do best and pander to their favourite pet ethnic voting block by apologizing for an event most of us never heard of involving people who are long dead and gone that a previous Conservative government already apologized for to try and beat the Liberals at their own game.

For the uninitiated the so-called Komagata-Maru Incident went down something like this.

An enterprising Sikh in B.C. at the time chartered a Japanese boat and sold passage to Canada to mostly fellow Sikhs back in the Punjab in British controlled India.  They sailed to Canada after departing from Hong Kong and arrived in Vancouver harbour expecting to disembark and bhangra their way right into the country because f**k Canadian sovereignty.  But the Canadian government wouldn't have it and so the Sikhs became restless and acted like violent retards.  After a two month stand-off Canada said "f**k this sh*t" and sent the boat packing with an armed escort into international waters to arrive in India where it's passengers refused to acquiesce to demands by the British to disembark.  And then they proceeded to act like violent retards.  A riot ensued and the British said "f**k this sh*t" and opened fire.  People died.

And it's our fault.

And we're sorry.

We're sorry we didn't let you break our laws and crash our borders because if we did then you wouldn't have acted like violent retards and got some people killed.  Because acting like violent retards is kinda your thing but that's our fault too I guess.  So what I'm trying to say is I'm sorry, I think, because it's our fault, or my fault, or something.

Hey, did anybody see my car?  It's a white Volkswagon Tiguan with plates WHTGLT.  I left it around 124th street and Old Yale Rd in Surrey, B.C.; in the Khalsa School parking lot to be precise.  I left it there to go see a doctor about getting a refill on my medicine.  If anybody finds it you know how to contact me.

Privately Sponsored, Publically Paid For.

There’s much to write about the debacle that is Canada’s response to the Syrian refugee situation and I may get around to publishing a post or two about it but I wouldn’t be writing anything that hasn’t been said in the comments section of the CBC new site or in the commentary of those who share the view that bringing these people here and in such great numbers is a stupid idea.  And referring to a past "success" is no guarantee of a repeated future outcome.  With that said I’m not too sure if I care to write much about the Syrians since it’s the system I want to focus on and the Syrians are just the current benefactors in a long line of past and future benefactors of our most dysfunctional and easily gameable asylum system.

I will say this.  It’s not really Canada’s response in the general sense, as in “we, the people”, but more so the response made by a gaggle of people who occupy influential and privileged positions in the public and private spheres whose inveterate need to virtue-signal compel them to engage in actions that the rest of us will eventually have to pay for in one form or another with no consideration on how we feel about the matter.  From what I gather most of us are sick of hearing about the Syrian refugees and can you blame us?  It’s infuriating to see our political class, from our civic leaders to our national representatives, foot-drag to address more pressing local and national concerns yet can find the time and resources to help foreigners in trouble especially when the cameras are rolling.  Besides, is it really the best idea to bring them here in the first place?  Wouldn’t the resources we’re spending to bring 50,000 Syrians (because the 25,000 the Liberals promised to dump into Canada pre-election didn’t piss us off enough it seems) be better spent and aid more people if it was allocated directly to the refugee camps?  How is bringing in 50,000 Syrians going to positively affect the crisis they are fleeing aside from making a few misguided Canadians feel good about themselves?  It really does lack any rational consideration but that’s par for the course.  We expelled logic and reason from shepherding the nation’s immigration policy a long time ago and replaced them with compassion and political necessity as the guiding lights which is why the system has become such an unmanageable monstrous mess.

In any case, and in the spirit of not repeating what has already been said elsewhere, there’s a write-up at Rebel Media about the true costs of private sponsorship of refugees.  If you haven’t already read it then do so.

A key point to take away from this is that private sponsors are only liable for up to one year for the upkeep of their charge.  After that they become wards of the state if they haven’t become fully self-reliant by then.  The sponsors get all the warm feelings and positive press while we, the public, eventually get the joy of having to pay for it all.

Another key point is that privately sponsored refugees are not wholly supported by their sponsors.  They are entitled to a bevy of publicly funded benefits like dental and health care which their sponsors are not on the hook for.
  
This contradicts the official government line that privately sponsored refugees are not a burden to the public when in fact they are but the government hasn’t been very forthright about its Syrian refugee pet project now has it?  We learned at first that most Syrians didn’t want to come here.  Of those who came to Canada we now know that many weren’t in any immediate danger.  In fact many already had accommodations, renting apartments in Lebanon and Turkey, along with gainful employment.  That being true these Syrians ceased being refugees having found relative refuge.

What’s bothersome about this whole affair is how it was presented to the public as if this was the only viable course of action when alternative options should have been given considerable weight.  Pre-election the Conservative approach appeared to be the most reasonable enjoying healthy public support but our grand-standing left of center parties had to double down on the lunacy and show how out of touch they are with those they want to govern by demanding Canada take an unpopular course of action particularly when that unfortunate boy washed ashore on a Turkish beach.  They capitalized on a terrible event to pander to our emotions so as to present themselves to the public as the compassionate choice and therefore the most fit to govern.  The whole thing reeked of grandiose moral exhibitionism for the sake of obtaining political capital.  And with the election of the Liberals, and thus making a world fame chasing primadonna the national leader (and I use the word "leader" in the loosest sense possible), expect things to get much worse.  So if you’re anything like me you may want to remove all sharp objects from your home.  But if you want to keep them on hand for, you know, "reasons" then remember it’s down the road not across the street.