Trudeau’s open borders creates a different Canada: when it comes to converting to a new immigration society, non-immigrant Canadians are to be disadvantaged in order to prevent “racial inequality”. Can that go well?
By Egmont | Since 2015 when he was first elected, Trudeau and his political allies have refused to say where their immigration policy should actually lead. The illusions from back then have burst: Canada cannot integrate hundreds of thousands of mostly young men – but it cannot get rid of them either, and yet new migrants are encouraged to come. With energy and largely without opposition, a transformation is being carried out whose goals remain murky and whose costs are concealed.
The division of the cities
Canada is in the process of a rapid ethnic and cultural transformation. It is becoming visible in more and more city neighbourhoods that are evacuated by locals and dominated by immigrants from the Caribbean, Chinese, Arab and North African regions. Canada’s segregation is progressing rapidly: in cities like Vancouver, half of the inhabitants are migrants; the situation is getting to be similar in Toronto. With 1 million migrants every 3 years, we should be building a city the size of Ottawa to accommodate these new arrivals, but this is clearly not happening. Instead, these migrants head straight for the nearest large city where they can receive all the “free” services that they came here for, while driving up housing costs for the rest of us.
“We always notice that certain sections of the population not only ignore our rule of law, the Charter of Rights, but also the police and other emergency responders, and even attack and fight them,” complains an anonymous city councilor. Society is divided along ethnic lines because the ability to integrate migrants has long been exceeded. The praised “diversity” separates out into more and more different single-color neighbourhoods every day.
It is no longer about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “Everybody’s welcome” Tweet, and it is also not about the high costs of migrant care or the question of whether Canada is a country of immigration. Since 2015 it has become a country without borders and without controls on immigration and its consequences. The question of integration has long since ceased to arise: it doesn’t exist. As unemployment increases under the Covid regime and automation and AI have gotten to the point where almost no job is safe, politicians across the spectrum still advocate open borders to a greater or lesser extent. Asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected simply receive another residence permit, if necessary under the authorities’ radar. Deportations are practically non-existent because they are too laborious for the authorities to deal with the phalanx of lawyers and bureaucratic obstacles. Everybody setting foot on Canada’s magic soil is allowed to remain as a client of the social system. Political and democratic reform through the simple fix of proportional representation is urgently needed.
Immigration without a destination or justification
Canada is the only country in the world that takes in large numbers of immigrants – 350,000 every year – without defining what form the society advertised under the keyword “diversity” should actually take. There are no clear rules for coming or staying. At the Liberal Party conference in February 2017, Trudeau declared: “Canadians are everyone who lives in this country.” His statement describes an open immigration country without borders, comparable to the US in the 19th century: whosoever crosses the border, whether with papers or without, willing to integrate or not, is here to stay. Did anyone ever believe that the Syrian “refugees” would ever return to their country? They have now been given citizenship. It was never politically negotiated, but describes the egg dance around the new reality of the country quite well: “At some point most of them have to go back, but actually everyone should stay and belong.”
The Prime Minister repeatedly assures us that anyone who is neither granted asylum nor recognized as a refugee will eventually be deported. In reality, the number of deportations can be counted on one hand.
All you need to get in is a ticket on a flight to Pearson International Airport or a taxi to Roxham Road. The RCMP ridicule it: “Any fruits or vegetables?” they jokingly ask the latest round of Nigerians. Rejections at the border, which no party wants to bring up with Trudeau, prove to be so legally complicated that they hardly ever take place. From mid-2018 to early 2019, border officers failed to prevent a single person from entering the Country, according to Canada Border Services Agency. The President of the Canadian Constitutional Research Centre, Jean Pontier said in 2019 that Trudeau has transformed the actual right of asylum into a “right to apply for asylum” and thus created a new reality – without changing a single law.
Sedative pills for the population
The demand made by the Secretary of the right-leaning Integration For Canada, Serena Galler: integration policy should invest in symbols for “identification with being Canadian” and stories about the rise of Europe and Canada. Analogous to the “American Way of Life” or “Stars and Stripes”, immigrants’ sense of belonging can also be increased in Canada through national symbols.
A proper roll call in front of the Canadian flag in their temporary accommodation and singing the Canadian national anthem together? Unimaginable with Trudeau, who is embarrassed by national symbols. What is supposed to be more effective is a counter-model that Razeel Farouk, director of the Canadian Center for Islamic Migration, calls the “post-migrant society,” a socio-politically desirable development, namely the “utopia of Islamic equality that goes beyond the migrant and lies outside of one’s origin.”
This is absolutely true for the welfare state, one of the core pieces of Canadian identity and at least a worrying one third of all economic output. This “equality” in the welfare state results from equating those who “have lived here for a long time” (Trudeau) with those literal thousands who join them every day as legal immigrants. The entitlements from the welfare system, paid for through taxes and contribution payments, are there indiscriminately for everyone. For this equality, the Canadian becomes the paymaster for new arrivals.
Legal downgrade of locals
To this end, a new “social narrative” should be enforced to create “a common space of diversity beyond ancestry”. And because “locals” fear for their material livelihood and cultural identity in the face of ever new “diversity” through archaic, Islamic social structures, Farouk proposes a “re-education program”. It is a “revolutionary plan” for the whole of society, “allowing better integration by having European Canadians understand and sympathize with their new Islamic neighbours,” according to Thomas Johnson, former head of research at the Fraser Institute.
It could be dismissed as academic madness. But the “overthrow” has long been Canadian law, for example in the form of the anti-racism directives infecting Human Rights Commissions across the country: if plaintiffs substantiate facts that “suggest” discrimination, the defendant must prove that the principle of equal treatment has not been violated. In the future, police officers will have to prove that they have not discriminated against criminals. “Racial profiling” has been banned for decades, for example when police officers spot drug dealers with their experienced eyes. Punishment threatens the police, not the perpetrators.
Soon police officers will be obliged to check groups of pensioners who are returning from their mall walking. This is not a problem, because whites cannot be discriminated against because they are not “structurally” disadvantaged! On the other hand, there is no control of dealers from North Africa or the Caribbean because this could be “systemic racism” or “racial profiling.”
Result: A group of African “refugees” and a young family with many children without a migrant background apply for the same apartment. Only the former enjoy protection against discrimination.
Discrimination against locals
The real crux, however, lies in the fact that this encourages discrimination against the majority of the population: unequal treatment is justified insofar as the “disadvantages of structurally disadvantaged people” are to be “compensated for” by proactive measures. The law thus encourages the government to financially support minorities or to issue compensatory quotas, for example with the CBC, our public broadcaster. Population groups that do not meet the criteria for minority protection, however, may be disadvantaged: Canadian families, heterosexuals, Christians, old white men. It is the locals who are all identified as suspects, if not as perpetrators.
It’s a quiet overthrow; driven by laws from top to bottom. There has never been a political debate or vote on it since Trudeau removed the borders of Canada and its legal and social system. And it seems irreversible, because it is desired by the so-called political elite. Two years ago the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh called out: “Our country will change drastically. And I tell you – I’m looking forward to it!”
When the changes become obvious many politicians become determined to accept them. The Conservatives largely avoid the subject. Their de facto policy is unconditional submission to Trudeau’s general line. Any MP who points out the consequences of the unguided immigration policy are either pushed out of the party ranks or are forced to resign. From a political point of view, Trudeau’s transformation is proceeding silently and on schedule.