CANADA IS INUNDATED WITH UNDESIRABLES

(Whitehorse Star, July 11, 2001, exactly two months before the Attack on America.)

by Jane Gaffin

Concerns about hordes of unauthorized people washing up on Canadian shores without proper paperwork were raised in a letter head "Minister Needs Public Pressure" (Star, June 15).

If all are allowed to enter Canada, letter-writer Joe Hueglin fears society will be ill-equipped to care for the burden.

He expressed grave concern of some carrying highly-contagious diseases that would spread throughout our population, thus placing undue strain on an already sick health-care system.

Within context, the Niagara Falls, Ontario writer is technically correct to state: "Immigrants have no 'right' to enter Canada." But the word "immigrant" serves to fuel the confusion already surrounding those who are here legally.

Immigrants, who go through proper hoops and channels, apply for status outside of Canada and submit medical records with their application for reasons of public safety.

They pay their fees. When Immigrant Canada grants them authority to immigrate to this country (and emigrate from their home country), they are issued a social insurance number so they can work.

They pay taxes and are covered by health care. They can own property or start a business. They have the legal rights of Canadian-born citizens with one exception. They cannot vote in public elections.

Legal immigrants are prevented from applying for full citizenship immediately. They used to be required to wait three years, which possibly has been reduced to two years under provisions of the revised Immigration Act.

Yet the public tends to interpret "immigrants" as "illegal", as was evidenced by a picture caption in the May 24 Whitehorse Star. It said 20 people became "legal residents" of Canada following a citizenship ceremony.

Those new citizens must be legal residents of Canada for at least a few years before they were allowed to apply for full citizenship, corrected letter-writer Stewart Jamieson (Star, May 29).

Legal or illegal, immigrants or refugees, Canadians are distressed about the annual immigration quota of 250,000 (planned increase to 260,000), plus another annual 25,000 refugees who have been flowing into this country for the last 15 years, or so.

Preston Manning, the former leader of the Official Opposition, used to hammer the Liberal government relentlessly over those extraordinary numbers.

The high number of misfits who can enter easily makes law-abiding Canadians contemplate the value of their own citizenship in this country. In the last five years, 54,900 undesirables were known to be living within Canada.

The figure does not even account for the thousands who slip in undetected and go underground. Canada is an easy conduit to the United States for terrorists and other undesirables. Its policies forced the U.S. government to beef up security along our common borders.

"Closing the loopholes" was the excuse given by Canadian politicians to rewrite and tighten the Immigration Act. As one can imagine, it is too complex and complicated for most lawyers to understand, much less the average person.

A Canadian resident travelling on a foreign passport will be called a "foreign nationalist", Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan told the host of the CBC radio show "The House" on June 12. It is not new that a person staying outside the country for an extended period, may be denied re-entry.

That's all fluff stuff. Then-Canadian Alliance Immigration critic Inky Mark described the new piece of legislation as Draconian. It sound like it came straight from Stalin's Russia, he said. (Are we surprised?)

Every Canadian resident has a history of immigration somewhere in the background. Even the aboriginal people came from some other place, he noted.

Like the Canadian Firearms Act, the title of the act is misleading. It is really about people control.

Meanwhile, Canada refuses to extradite or deport suspected terrorists and assassins, posing as refugees, if the criminals face the death penalty or other forms of persecution back home. Therefore, Canada is stuck with them. (Makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?)

"At times," stressed Mr. Hueglin, "protecting society must outweigh the claims of individuals."

Yet Immigration spokesman Danielle Sarazin told Toronto Sun writer Tom Godfrey last February that priorities are to remove criminals and those who pose a risk to Canadian society.

The department of immigration won't/can't/isn't deporting all undesirables, albeit a report indicates removal numbers are rising dramatically.

Immigration deported 6,760 in 1996; about 8,100 in 1997 and again in 1998; and 8,300 in 1999.

Last year, immigration officials deported a record 8,640 undesirables, and federal warrants are out for an estimated 15,000 others who have gone underground, wrote Godfrey.

"Among those deported were 2,000 violent criminals who had to be escorted to their homelands by Canadian officers because they posed a risk to the public and passengers on planes," continued the February 16 article.

The numbers tally 54,900 over five years. Why in the world are these undesirables allowed to set foot on our soil in the first place? asked the Canadian Intelligence Service in a March bulletin.

There is something awfully wrong when Canada is attracting a disproportionate number of criminals, terrorists, murderers and other undesirables and the horrendous expense of dealing with and deporting them--escorted or unescorted.

On February 20, an article headed "RCMP Joins UN Probe of Refugee Scam" appeared in the National Post.

"Two RCMP officers will join a United Nations" probe into claims UN officials in Kenya have been selling refugee documentation to people seeking asylum in developed countries," the article said.

"The probe, which has targeted four officials, is expected to identify additional suspects in a trafficking ring that questions the legitimacy of thousands of people admitted to Canada in recent years based on paper work provided by the Kenya office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees."

Canada processed 741 such cases in Kenya last year alone. Each case averaged three to four family members.

A senior UN official close to the probe admitted similar scams could exist in other offices of UN High Commissioner for Refugees worldwide, said the Post.

"If so, the number of bogus refugees displacing genuinely needy cases could be enormous."

The scam involves big bucks. The investigation found that U.S.-dollar payments of $3,000 to $5,000 would secure a rapid interview. A new life in a developed country cost between $5,000 and $10,000, depending on the country.

The United States is the most coveted destination. Canada, a prime destination, is one of the world's leading recipients of refugees. Australia places next as a favourite destination.

Some people still want to see the United Nations mutate into a "world government", mused the Canadian Intelligence Service. "But who would police the world police?"

The commentary questions why Canada is letting a UN agency select immigrants for Canada, anyway? Why isn't Canada carefully selecting its own immigrants?

These questions can be raised with Inky Mark (or your favorite MP) along with the concerns perplexing Mr. Hueglin, who suggests constituents inform and educate their local members of Parliament.

In turn, they should insist their respective MPs obtain truthful answers from Immigration Minister Caplan--not political rhetoric.

(Note: Following the September 11 Attack on America, the Liberal government hastily architected a bill regarding "terrorism" which is already before the Senate. But don't rely on this bunch being a "chamber of sober second thought". It is doubtful that any Senator will see the implications of the bill. The Liberals have been wanting to pass something like this for a long time.

It would mean membership in organizations (Masons, Shriners, Girl Scouts, NFA, RFOC, etc.) could be curtailed and the government could prevent people from congregating.

Because terrorists are purported to be from some religious background or cult, Canadians would lose the freedom to worship in a place and way of their choice.

And federally-controlled banks, already extortionists with the power to seize accounts for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, would have the legal licence to seize your bank account and assets in the name of stopping money laundering and to prevent terrorists from hiding their money in our banks. (They don't anyway).

The reason this terrorist bill should be so highly suspect is became the government has not defined the word "terrorism" or "terrorist". So, every Canadian should be terrified and start oiling your rifles, putting your money in your mattress or bury it with the silver in the back yard and go dig a cave (bin Laden has a good set of blueprints). The terrorist police will be out in full force, doing house-to-house searches, ransacking your houses and seizing all of your valuables as soon as that bill passes the Senate. The federal government already has plenty of environmental and people-control legislation that allows this to happen "in the opinion of" or "at the discretion of" the "inspectors".

-- 30 --