🚀 go-pugleaf

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
               CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CIH                                                Subscription Rates:
P.O. Box 332, Stn. "B"                                  $20.00/Year
Etobicoke, Ontario     http://www.canadafirst.net
M9W 5L3                                           cfirc@canadafirst.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mirrored at:   http://www.freedomsite.org and http://www.populist.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

               IMMIGRATION PETITION!  TIME TO HAVE YOUR SAY!

            http://www.canadafirst.net/immi-petition/index.html
              But you only have till March 28, 1999 to do it!


               They're making plans to "change" Canada again
      Would you like to (finally) have some say on immigration issues?

Well, you'd better speak now -- or forever hold your peace,
* Canada's current Immigration Act dates from 1977 
* What's happened to the country in those 20-odd years? 
(comments must be received by March 31, 1999) 

Canada's population increased by an incredible 40 per cent between the end
of the war and 1958. The optimistic mood was strengthened in 1947 when our
first Citizenship Act made Canadians of us -- rather than British subjects.
The country was hopping with energy and shared a remarkably cohesive vision
of the future. Canada's second Citizenship Act took effect in 1977, and a
year later -- 1978 -- brought us to our current Immigration Act. It is not a
happy exercise to compare the supremely confident post-war Canadian with
today's confused and neglected drab. In 1977, a postage stamp cost 14-cents
and, just coincidentally, that year the country saw 500 refugee claims
staked here. Today, we get about 25,000 (60 per cent of which are rejected
outright, although most supplicants wind up staying, thanks to an
inexhaustible round of appeals). Immigration lawyers and other creatures
pecking at the corpse of Canada, regularly defend the status quo, on
humanitarian -- never fiscal grounds. Since coming to power in 1993, the
Liberal Party has ruminated the immigration cud without pause and without
effect. The Immigration Act is 22 years old, and the government says it
wants your input on a new one.

                             Immigration Facts!

 * In 1977 Canada received 500 refugee claims -- today -- around 25,000 

 * There are 1,400 criminals at large in Canada who have received
 deportation orders

 * As of Oct, 1998 there were 6,119 deportation orders issued against "lost"
 refugee claimants

 * Only 11% of refugees were privately sponsored in 1997

 * The feds lost track of 4,613 NEW refugee claimants in the first 8 months
 of 1998 alone

 * The Immigration and Refugee Board is back-logged with 24,000 claims -
 (precisely the number of refugee claimants who entered Canada over the last
 year)

 * In November 1997, Toronto was reporting 140 - 170 cases of tuberculosis a
 year -- now -- there are 450 to 500 new cases recorded in Toronto (a
 three-fold increase in less than a year and a half).

 * The 1998 world population was 4.75-billion. The UN estimates the
 population will be 8.20-billion by 2050. Virtually all that growth will
 take place in the developing world. (For instance, sometime this year,
 Vietnam's population will break 80,000,000. In the developed world, the
 1998 rate, 1.18-billion, will very slightly drop by 2050, to 1.16-billion.
 Should we be penalized for practising responsible birth strategies?

 * In net migration, compare intake rates (per 1,000) of the 3 top
 immigrant-receiving nations:
 .....(3.1 per 1,000)  - United States
 .....(3.12 per 1,000) - New Zealand
 .....(6.1 per 1,000)  - Canada (figures:
 Central Intelligence Agency 1997 World Factbook)

 * Canada is NOT a country with "infinite space" - just 5 % of our land mass
 is arable (On April 1st, one-quarter of our land mass will be ceded to
 create an Inuit homeland)

 * Last year Immigration Minister Robillard "consulted" with various
 immigration pals'n'cronies

 * Ordinary Canadians & immigration reformers were excluded from the
 proceedings

 * She scrapped most recommendations of her own review committee (cost:
 $1.2-million) (notably dropping language requirements when ethnics began to
 demonstrate outside hearings)

 * But perhaps the issues are not as cut and dried as cynicism might
 suggest: Last year's "consultations" must have indicated that simply giving
 up did not reflect the will of the majority of Canadians. Otherwise, why
 embark on these proceedings all over again?

               IMMIGRATION PETITION!  TIME TO HAVE YOUR SAY!

            http://www.canadafirst.net/immi-petition/index.html

Yet, when Lucienne Robillard met the press on January 6, she crowed that
last year's consultations "did not show any justification for a radical
change in direction or a break from the success of Canada's immigration
policy." Try not to laugh. These consultations, sold as "wide ranging" and
"public debates" , were neither. Applications from parties not financially
dependent on the masticating spines of relentless immigration were chased
off with a stick. The really rather tame recommendations of Ms. Robillard's
own hand picked legislative review committee, were largely consigned to the
Old Recommendations' Home. (That the 172 recommendations cost taxpayers
$1.2-million is some indication of the kind of money this department
squanders with impunity). Now, a 60-page immigration white paper humorously
misnamed, Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century informs us,
with great fanfare, that the feds want to do it all -- all over again!

Ms. Robillard assures us that her department has been poring over 2,200
written proposals (in addition to the 115 submitted at the Mad-Hatter's
consultations). Realistically, we have to assume that the vast majority of
written submissions were likewise contributed by people who have a strong,
humanitarian commitment to their paycheques. So, if you troubled to write,
thank you indeed for standing up to an otherwise runaway steamroller. You'll
be delighted to know that a careful and (at least initially) less than
optimistic reading of the white paper reveals that we have made inroads.
Many of the guidelines we regularly criticized and lampooned (which were
vigorously defended not so long ago) are suddenly, mysteriously,
acknowledged policy failures. And don't kid yourself about the source of
this progress; immigration reform organizations are pretty thin on the
ground in Canada.

Remember, until very recently, only "racists" noticed "extremely rare"
abuses of the system. How rare? So rare that the entire Act must be
rewritten. But the same old mythologies persist: "Canadians have made
choices about the nature of the society they want [Have we?] ... Diversity
is a source of collective strength [Is it?]" (p. 9) The document likes to
refer to us as: "Canada's human capital base." (p. 30)

The white paper's guidelines for tougher measures are consistently vague and
nebulous; geared perhaps, to prevent the peasants from saying unkind things.
In marked contrast, plans to ease and relax existing restrictions are
energetically outlined in crisp, concise point form. Still, the white paper
contains a few home truths: "In human history, the movement of people across
international borders has never been as extensive," (p. 14). Immigration
Canada greets the news by splashing a bit of perfume about. With just a few
minor, liberalizing adjustments, it's assumed that Canadians will be
delighted with the new immigration policies that have been decided for them.
This goes well beyond the usual arrogance; the department knows very well
what the polls say, but seems to know equally well, that Canadians have
largely been intimidated by barking, shrieking lobbies. This, as much as
previous experience, suggests that without relentless and unflinching
pressure, REAL REFORM will simply die on the vine. After all, it's in the
nature of bureaucracies to get away with as much as possible. In short:
"Sure, we could drag along without the highest immigration intake rate in
the developed world but why should we?"

It's the usual rush to judgement -- your letters and submissions must be in
by March 31, 1999. Even a brief letter will be more effective than the carte
blanche of consenting silence. The first defence against any form of tyranny
is information: ask to be added to the Immigration Department's mailing
list. This sends an unmistakable message: "ordinary" Canadians are beginning
to take an interest and demand a share of the decision making process.

If we get a new Immigration Act every 20 years, this blueprint will be
setting policy for a very long time to come. Please bear in mind what the
last 22 years have done for/to Canada. The white paper has decided upon
direction You are being consulted on mechanics and implementation, under the
mistaken impression that the Canadian taxpayer is to be routinely excluded
from the family of "stakeholders" and "interested parties", even though it
is the ordinary Canadian who suffers most whenever another unworkable
immigration scheme is imposed on us. Nevertheless, the white paper stays up
nights, obsessed with "fairness" and "accountability" -- a commitment that
is consistently exercised on behalf of people who ARE NOT (yet) Canadian
citizens. There are recurring nightsweats over "injustices which cannot be
remedied", as though the issue were one of capital punishment, rather than
pulling up stakes and settling in Canada. As Ms. Robillard dog-paddles
between leftish lost causes, lawyers, loonies, and lachrymose lobbyists,
it's horribly clear that she simply does not have what it takes to steer an
intelligent course through treacherous waters. For God's sake, somebody toss
her a solution!

Note the white paper's very telling admission: "Canada has resisted the
trend in other immigrant-receiving countries to restrict family
immigration." (p. 24) As you read, you begin to see why. Canada has decided
to go all the way the other way, proposing "a possible reduction in the
length of sponsorships for spouses and children. Currently, the duration of
sponsorship is 10 years for all categories. In the province of Quebec, the
duration is three years for spouses." (p. 24) Are we actually talking about
reducing the period of sponsorship to three years or less? Moreover, (in a
climate where it is very nearly criminal to criticize any aspect of the
"gay" lifestyle), he government means to redefine "spouse" to include same
sex partners, (in a community notorious for finding new "life-partners" with
some frequency) even while it relaxes the terms of obligation/responsibility
for the sponsor. This, when international law enforcement agencies join CSIS
and our own Senate in criticizing Canada's record of admitting criminals and
terrorists under already lax regulations.

The feds also intend to relax the age ceiling on dependent children. An
innocuous sounding idea, but read on: "For the purposes of the family class,
a dependent child is currently defined as a son or daughter who is: less
than 19 years of age and unmarried; or in full-time attendance at an
educational institution and financially supported by the parents since
reaching age 19; or suffering from a physical or mental disability and who
is wholly or substantially supported by the parents. [They're looking at]
increasing the current age limit for a dependent child from less than 19
years to under age 22, and maintaining a provision to include older children
still in full-time studies and financially dependent on their parents, or
dependent because they are suffering from a physical or mental disability."
(p. 23)

Again, aside from crime and security considerations, it hardly matters
whether "child" or "spouse" is wholly dependent on the sponsor, if the
sponsorship period is drastically reduced or simply abrogated. Enforcing
sponsorship has become such a thorn in the side that: "the government
proposes to expand Citizenship and Immigration Canada's power to undertake
collection action against defaulting sponsors and to share proceeds with the
provinces." (p. 26) Delightful.

There's a monotonous regularity to the mind-numbing range of abuses that
Immigration Canada has yet to sort out. Very belatedly, the government is
considering: "removing current restrictions on prosecuting people who aid
and abet illegal migration ... [Creating] a new offence for people who alter
or counterfeit any immigration document ... Authorizing Immigration and
Refugee Board adjudicators to continue hearings in the absence of the person
concerned where proper notice of the hearing has been given ... Authority to
exchange information with other countries on criminality and security issues
[through] agreements with other states to permit information sharing. ...
Stiffer penalties for inadmissible people who repeatedly return to Canada
without authorization ... A provision whereby failed refugee claimants who
return to Canada after 90 days and submit another protection claim would not
have access to [another] protection hearing ... Claimants may also apply, at
any time and as often as desired, for permanent residence on humanitarian or
compassionate grounds. ... As refugee claimants without documents have the
same access to Canada's determination system as claimants with documents,
there is currently no incentive to cooperate in establishing identity ...
Refugee claimants who refuse to cooperate in establishing their identity
could be detained because of security concerns."

Can you imagine petitioning for "asylum" as you actively hinder and obstruct
your new benefactor? Indulging such impudence and arrogance (at such an
early stage in the determination process) does not bode well for Canada.

Another previously unsuspected abuse is "the Family Business Job Offer" (p.
29). Mercifully, it appears to be on the way out, but additional points
accrued to the hopeful immigrant if a relative (who happens to be a Canadian
citizen) offered him a job with the family business. No one has explained
how this might "help" unemployed Canadians. Presumably, legislation
regarding the scandal-plagued "buy your way in" programmes is not meant to
be humorous. However, the Immigration department is focusing now on "proven
risk takers" (p. 30) -- as opposed to crooks.

Several telling admissions seem to run counter to the reams of propaganda
that have been choking us for years: "Recent research indicates that over
the past decade, immigrants have not been as successful. Data reveal that
new immigrants are starting from further behind than earlier immigrants, and
that they are catching up more slowly. (p. 28) ... 95 per cent of the
successful skilled workers applicants are assessed as having some official
language skills . About half of the entrepreneur immigrants and two-thirds
of investor immigrants have no official language skills. (p. 29) ...
Refugees from abroad [that is, the ones we actually select] are selected
with the expectation that they will be able to become self-sufficient within
a year of their arrival in Canada. In this decade, most refugees have needed
a longer period before they could successfully resettle in Canada." (p. 41)

See the the Department of Immigration's new white paper. We'd urge you to
read it carefully. It's our feeling that the "changes" outlined are mostly
cosmetic. It's so Canadian: give everyone what they want - don't give
offense. What it does give, is the uneasy impression that without
significant resistance, the country will simply throw the gates open even
wider.

Note, as you read, that while much space is devoted to theoretically
tightening up the system, the means to accomplish this are sketchy and
vague. In marked contrast, proposals meant to "streamline", "facilitate
entry" and generally loosen and relax already promiscuous standards are
outlined in very specific, concise terms. For instance, the stated intention
to "redefine" spousal relationships to "reflect" same-sex "non-traditional
families" -- while relaxing the sponsorship period a spouse remains
responsible for that person. This, at a time when the Americans are already
pointing to Canada's lax immigrant and refugee system as a "conduit for
terrorists".

Since the first line of defense against any tyranny is an educated people,
we urge everyone to sign up for Immigration Canada's wealth of mailers and
updates. We'd like to further urge everyone to apply to speak at the
consultations, submit a written proposal, and, at the very least, send your
comments via e-mail through this link.

Believe it or not, it's still your country. In the wake of last year's sham
"consultations" (by the immigration lobby, for the immigration lobby, of the
immigration lobby) Ms. Robillard presumed to say that last year's
consultations "did not show any justification for a radical change in
direction or a break from the success of Canada's immigration policy." Ain't
croneyism great?

Please, take this opportunity and explain that the silent majority is tired
of suffering in silence. Bear in mind, comments must be submitted before
March 31, 1999

Our advice is: SIGN OUT ONLINE PETITION!  Your leter will be automatically
sent to ministers and other govenment people.  WRITE regardless. It doesn't
have to be a lengthy document with footnotes; make your feelings known,
concisely and without slurs. Make copies of your letter and spread them
around (Note on the bottom where copies are going. That makes it harder to
throw in the trash) Remember, any letter to Parliament or your MP is
postage-free. We recommend that you write (and don't forget to ask to be
added to the department's mailing list) to: your MP as well as to

                      Legislative Review Secretariat,
                        Narano Building, 10th Floor,
                          360 Laurier Avenue West,
                              Ottawa, K1A 1L1
                            fax: (613) 946-0581
                          E-mail: legrev@istar.ca

The white paper is at
http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/about/policy/lr/e_lr.html


               IMMIGRATION PETITION!  TIME TO HAVE YOUR SAY!
            
            http://www.canadafirst.net/immi-petition/index.html

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
               CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CIH                                                Subscription Rates:
P.O. Box 332, Stn. "B"                                  $20.00/Year
Etobicoke, Ontario     http://www.canadafirst.net
M9W 5L3                                           cfirc@canadafirst.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mirrored at:   http://www.freedomsite.org and http://www.populist.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------