Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

The elites versus the commoner on immigration

- August 2nd, 2011

The yawning gap between the elites and everyday Canadians on the issue  immigration, that’s the topic of tonight’s Byline.

While the Harper government has been welcoming record numbers of immigrants each year, they have also begun cracking down on crooks and fraudsters that prey on our generous system.

In addition to the ongoing manhunt for people ordered out of the country for alleged ties to war crimes and crimes against humanity, they also recently announced a crackdown on people getting their citizenship through fraud.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced two weeks ago that the government would strip 1800 people of the Canadian citizenship that they obtained through fraudulent means.

This of course greatly upset the Toronto Star and others who always claim the conservatives as being anti-immigrant.

How a government that lets in more than 680,000 people last year can be anti-immigrant is beyond me but that’s what Canada did. In addition to the 280,000 permanent residents admitted to Canada there were 380,000+ admitted as a temporary foreign workers foreign students and other categories.

But in response to the move to strip citizenship from people who never should’ve gotten it in the first place but Toronto Star said:

“Kenney is pre-empting real public debate by pushing hot buttons and waving red flags”

They went on to characterize the revoking of fraudulent citizenship as a bad deal for Canada.

“By hunting down 1,800 alleged fraudsters — most of whom live abroad — and revoking their citizenship, he is spending public funds his department badly needs for basic tasks.”

The Globe and Mail described the manhunt for those already ordered deported and accused of some pretty nasty crimes as American-style and we all know that code for bad.

But what do Canadians actually think? A Leger Marketing survey conducted at the end of July gives us a glance.

Almost ¾ of Canadians 73% said that those who obtained their passport or citizenship through fraud should be kicked out right away, while 18% said let them stay while all the deportation processes work their way through the system.

As further proof that too much education may rot your brain, those with a university education are twice as likely to say we should let people stay.

Support for kicking out fraudsters goes across party lines, regardless of whether you vote conservative, liberal, NDP or Bloc the majority of Canadians support a tough line on fraudsters. Our chattering classes meanwhile continually worry that such measures are too harsh and send the wrong message.

I’m not surprised that the difference between ordinary Canadians at the chattering classes though. Last year our own pollster David collateral of Abacus data conducted a poll where he asked if Canada accepted too many immigrants too few were just the right amount. Half the country believes we are taking it too many immigrants and want the number decreased.

Shocking for many was the news that more than one third of those born outside of Canada agreed that immigration numbers should be decreased.

Such views cannot be considered radical when they are held by half the population or more. We need to have frank and open discussions about the immigration issue in this country rather than simply having the progressive elite dictate policy and tell anyone who dissents that their radical or racist.

We need to continue having frank and open discussions about immigration even if it makes the people at the top uncomfortable.

And that’s the Byline.

‘Barbaric’ exactly the word that’s needed – Friday column

- March 18th, 2011

You really have to wonder what our country is coming to.

Last week I wrote about our immigration system, so messed up we can’t even kick out convicted terrorists. For that I was called racist.

This week we have Justin Trudeau, the Liberal immigration critic, blasting the federal government for calling female genital mutilation, forced marriages and “honour killings” barbaric.

“There’s nothing that the word ‘barbaric’ achieves that the words ‘absolutely unacceptable’ would not have achieved,” he said.

He also called for the government to show “responsible neutrality” when discussing issues like this.

Trudeau has retracted those comments after a barrage of abuse and added he was sorry if his words had been “interpreted by anyone as dismissing or diminishing the serious and appalling nature of honour killings and other gender-based violence.”

How did we get to the point where the first reaction on the part of an elite member of the political culture is to shudder at the sight of a blunt word to describe the brutal murder of women whose behaviour is deemed dishonourable (such as when they get raped) and the barbaric practice of mutilating young girls’ genitals to keep them “pure”? What on earth is a “neutral” response in such cases?

If the government had issued a guide on good old-fashioned Canadian spousal abuse, Trudeau and the Liberals would probably have complained the government’s language was not strong enough. The only reason they wanted to mince words in this case is because the government guide in question, Discover Canada, is aimed at newcomers as a way to help them study for citizenship.

On Twitter, while still defending his comments, Trudeau mused that using the word barbaric gave the impression the government was saying, “us civilized, you not.” I’d have to disagree. The government was saying, “us civilized, you better be as well if you want to come here.”

Trudeau’s qualms over the use of a blunt word betray a mindset that has swallowed multiculturalism so fully that it doesn’t know what to do when confronted with cultural practices that don’t jive with Canada’s core values.

The government’s answer is to denounce them. Others, including many in the media, want to look the other way.

When Asqa Parvez was strangled to death by her father in 2007 for adopting a western way of dressing and refusing to wear the hijab it was an honour killing, but most media outlets were squeamish about using the term. The same squeamishness showed up in the charges facing Mohammad Shafia in the death of his first wife and three daughters, found inside a submerged car in the Rideau Canal.

Critics of the term, mostly moral and cultural relativists, claim that we shouldn’t single out honour killings for special denunciation. All murders, they say, are bad.

True, up to a point.

The problem is not all countries consider honour killings murder. Some countries effectively allow this practice, either by calling them accidents or suicides, or by not spending much time or energy prosecuting the perpetrators or giving them laughably mild sentences when they do bother to prosecute them.

That’s why the federal government was right to use strong language to denounce truly barbaric practices. It is past time the media in this country did the same.

— Lilley will host his own show, Byline, on Sun News Network starting April 18

via ‘Barbaric’ exactly the word that’s needed | Brian Lilley | Columnists | Comment | Ottawa Sun.

Is multiculturalism dead in Canada?

- February 11th, 2011

Canada's immigration minister, Jason Kenney, isn't ready to call multiculturalism dead just yet. QMI Agency, file photo

So we’ve now had the German Chancellor, the British Prime Minister and the French President all say that multiculturalism is a failure.

Will we ever hear a Canadian politician say the same thing?

Right now the answer is no, at least not one in power. Our lead editorial declared it was dead on Thursday and pointed to the ethnic enclaves that dot the Canadian landscape.

And what ferments so often in many of these single-cultural, often state-dependent ghettos are the religious prejudices and ethnic hatreds of their homelands.

It’s bad baggage.

Guest columnist Gurmukh Singh pointed out that our so-called multiculturalism leads to ethnic self-segregation and does nothing to bring about the diversity its champions claim.

When there is little social and economic interaction among various ethnic enclaves, what is there to celebrate about this so-called multiculturalism? It is pure segregation.

Today, Charles Adler just calls it all plain BS and says it hurts the country.

Multiculturalism divides Canadian against Canadian. It gives power to the basest elements in Canada, those who don’t believe in national unity and ultimately those who don’t believe in Canada as we know it.

So with all this opinion saying multiculturalism is hurting us we must be close to shutting down this 1970s Utopian experiment right?

Wrong.

First off, it is in our constitution through the Charter of Rights. I’d like to know whose bright idea that was.

Secondly, the chattering classes still love this stuff even as they, mostly being well off white folks, live in self-selected wealthy white enclaves – see Rosedale, Westmount, Westboro or insert your own local enclave here.

There is something happening even if it is subtle.

Jason Kenney, the current immigration minister, is one of the most pro-immigration people I’ve ever met. He still believes, despite calls and criticism to cut the number of immigrants, that Canada ‘s program of having the highest relative to population immigration rate is a good thing.

But Kenney also believes that while ethnic enclaves are inevitable but….

“My concern, and I think it should be a concern of all of ours, is to ensure that ethnic enclaves, so-called, don’t become traps, preventing people from integrating into the broader Canadian society, limiting their opportunities, their economic opportunities or their social opportunities for engagement beyond the culture with which they are familiar.”

He goes on to describe how he is changing the Multiculturalism program from “song, sari and samosa multiculturalism” to one that deals with integrating immigrants and increasing the level of civic literacy among immigrants and the Canadian born.

“Now, that’s exactly what we have done through the Multiculturalism Program. We’ve changed the priorities of the program to focus on rapid pathways to integration, building bridges between communities to avoid the isolation of particular ethno-cultural communities, focusing on youth-at-risk and combating radicalization.”

So we are a long way off from Kenney or anyone in power uttering the same words as Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy but kenney argues that we are a long way off from the problems of those countries.

Let’s hope he is right.

You can watch Kenny’s whole speech, called Good Citizenship: The Duty to Integrate below. Since he’s the man making the policy, it is worth taking a look.

Part one

Part two

Part three

So much for those western rednecks!

- December 8th, 2010

A new poll out today on immigration asks some tough questions in a very blunt way. Example: In your opinion, do you feel there are too many, too few, or about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada each year?

The main story is below, followed by the poll results uploaded in Scribd. One of the things you will notice if you read the full poll is that residents of Ontario and Quebec are more likely to say there are too many immigrants. So much for stereotypes.

Too many immigrants: poll

By BRIAN LILLEY, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

OTTAWA – A new poll shows half of Canadians think there are too many immigrants coming to this country and the government should cut the numbers.

The poll by Ottawa’s Abacus Data found that 49% of Canadians think there are too many immigrants coming to Canada each year, compared to 32% who think we hit the right number annually, 7% who think there are too few and 13% who don’t know.

via Too many immigrants: poll | Canada | News | Calgary Sun.

Abacus Immigration Poll Dec 2010

Follow Brian on Twitter

Read more from Lilley’s Pad

Supreme Court bilingualism battle ramps up again

How’s that Maclean’s cover looking now?

Tory bounce in two new polls

Are WikiLeaks fake?